SHARMA, J. - (1.) JUDGMENT debtor petitioner seeks to quash the order dated April 15, 1997 of the learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City Jaipur whereby application of the decree holder non-petitioner under Section 152 CPC was allowed and the name of `ratan Champa Charitable Trust' was corrected as `ratan Champa Charity Trust. '
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that on January 13, 1991 suit instituted by Prakash Chand Sancheti seeking specific performance of the contract was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 6 Jaipur City Jaipur. Civil Regular First Appeal preferred against the said decree was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by a detailed judgment dated May 4, 1994. Special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance was preferred by the defendant but the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal on July 5, 1995. THEreafter special leave petition was preferred but it was also dismissed in limine by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. On June 1, 1994 Prakash Chand Sancheti filed an application for execution of the decree for getting one sale deed amongst other executed in the name of Ratan Champa Charitable Trust, Jaipur. As Prakash Chand Sancheti entered into spiritual order (Sanyas) the court on an application of Smt. Champadevi mother of Prakash Chand Sancheti ordered substitution on November 11, 1994. THEreafter on November 24, 1994 Smt. Champa Devi filed execution application through power of attorney holder Shri Umrao Malji. Since the application, on objections by the judgment debtor was ordered to be dismissed to be filed by non-competent person, another execution application No. 20/95 was filed on September 7, 1995. By this application Smt. Champa Devi filed draft of sale deed which was required to be executed and by this application the decree holder intended the sale deed to be executed in the name of Ratan Champa Charity Trust for whole of the property. THE judgment debtor raised objections against the execution of the whole property inter alia that in the decree the execution could not be made only in one of the names as specified therein and in the second execution application the sale deed was desired to be executed in the name of Ratan Champa Charity Trust while the sale of the portion of the property can be executed in the name of Ratan Champa Charitable Trust and that too for a portion of the suit property and not the whole property in the name of Ratan Champa Charitable Trust. This objection was decided by the executing court on January 9, 1996 holding that though in the decree one of the sale deeds could be executed in the name of Ratan Champa Charitable Trust as contended by the judgment debtor and in the first application filed by the decree holder to be registered in the name of Ratan Champa Cheritable Trust, the court ordered that the name of Ratan Champa Charitable Trust was clerical error and therefore ordered accordingly and proceeded that the sale deed could be executed in the name of Ratan Champa Charity Trust. Against this order the judgment debtor preferred revision petition. During the course of arguments, it was stated by the learned counsel appearing for the decree holder that the decree holder moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC before the trial court for amendment in the decree and in view of this statement the revision petition was accepted on September 23, 1996 and the order of the court dated January 9, 1996 was set aside. Application under Section 152 CPC was moved by the decree holder before the trial court stating therein that the suit had been decided and the appeal had also been dismissed by the High Court. In the operative portion of the decree the name of the trust has been mentioned as Ratan Champa Charitable Trust by mistake and therefore in the operative portion the name of the trust may be mentioned as Ratan Champa Charity Trust. This application was contested by the judgment debtor by filing reply with the averments that no such correction could be ordered in the decree and the trial court had no jurisdiction to make amendment as the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed by the High Court after hearing the parties. THE order of the trial court having been merged in the appellate court no such correction under Section 152 CPC could be made and the application was not maintainable. THE learned trial court allowed the application moved by the decree holder under Section 152 CPC. as indicated hereinabove. Against this order that the present action for filing the present revision petition has been resorted to by the petitioner judgment debtor. Mr. B. P. Agrawal, learned senior advocate vehemently canvassed that the trial court had no jurisdiction to rehear or alter an order after it has been passed and entered. If any mistake of law in passing the decree is made, it cannot be said to have arisen through accidental slip or omission. An error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made. Such an error shall be apparent on the face of the record, that is to say it is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. The case for such a slip or omission may be the Judge's inadvertence or the advocate's mistake. However wide the said expressions are construed they cannot countenance a re-argument on merits on questions of fact or law, or permit a party to raise new arguments which he has not advanced at the first instance. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. After passing of the judgment, decree or orders, court becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the decree of the trial court was ultimately merged in the decree of the High Court, and only the High Court has jurisdiction to rectify clerical mistakes committed therein. Reliance was placed on Preston Banking Co. vs. William Allsup and Sons (1), Jangali Singh vs. Ramjag Singh (2), Master Construction Co. vs. State of Orissa and others (3), Dwarka Das vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another (4), Joy Chand Lal Babu vs. Kamalaksha Chaudhary and others (5), Mt. Kulwant Devi vs. Ajodhi Singh and others (6), Nand Lal Tanti vs. Jagdev Singh (7), Bachan Singh vs. Harbans Kaur (8), Kannan vs. Narayani (9) and State of Bihar and another vs. Nilmani Sahu and others On the other hand, Mr. Vidhya Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the decree holder non-petitioner supported the impugned order. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record as well as the case law cited before me.
(3.) THE scope of section 152 CPC is very limited. THE error arising out of or occurring from an accidental slip or omission is an error due to a careless mistake or omission unintentionally made. It is not an error which depends for its discovery, on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. Only such errors which arose due to accidental slip or omission may be corrected under Section 152 CPC. THE court after passing of the judgment decree or orders becomes functus officio and thus not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. Section 152 CPC cannot be liberally constructed and under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify, after or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case the judgment and decree of the court were merged in the judgment of the High Court and the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to correct its earlier mistake. THErefore I hold that the learned court below had committed error in passing the impugned order. Now it is to be seen as to whether this court under section 115 CPC can interfere with the impugned order under this section. The High Court under section 115 CPC can only interfere with the order of the court below if the court below has committed jurisdictional error and for that error failure of justice or irreparable injury apprehended. The scope of section 115 CPC was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation Pvt. Ltd. It was observed thus: " 10. In our view, the High Court has committed a jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 21. 5. 1998. That order is clearly not revisable by the High Court in view of the specific interdict embodied in the proviso to section 115 (1) of the Code. Under the same sub-section, a High Court is empowered to call for the records of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate thereto, if it had exceeded or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, or had acted illegally or with material irregularity. In such case, the High Court has power to make such order as it thinks fit. The restriction against exercise of such a general power has been incorporated in the proviso which was inserted in the sub-section by the CPC Amendment Act of 1976. That proviso reads thus: " Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, of any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except; (a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. " Proviso to sub-section (1) of section 115 CPC. was added by the Amending Act No. 104 of 1976 and it was made effective with effect from Feb. 1, 1977. A look at the said proviso demonstrates that this court shall vary or reverse under section 115 CPC. except where (1) the order if it had been made in favour of the party, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding or (b) the order, if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. ;