- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chinta Mani v. Debi Prasad
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns a civil revision application filed by the plaintiff-decree holder challenging an order dated 10th August 1933 by the Deputy Commissioner of Garhwal. The plaintiff initially filed a suit seeking cancellation of a deed of gift and a declaration that the deed did not affect his rights. The suit was dismissed with costs on 29th November 1929. The plaintiff appealed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs on 17th November 1932. Subsequently, on 10th May 1933, the defendant applied to the Subordinate Judge under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (Civil P.C.) to amend the decree due to a clerical or arithmetical mistake regarding the fee awarded. The decree incorrectly stated the fee as Rs. 6.4-0 instead of the correct Rs. 270 based on the suit valuation of Rs. 6,000. The Court amended the decree on 26th June 1933 without notifying the plaintiff. The plaintiff then applied on 13th July 1933 to review this amendment on grounds of lack of notice and jurisdictional issues, arguing that the decree had merged in the appellate court's decree, and thus only the appellate court could correct it. The lower Court rejected the review application on 10th August 1933, holding that the correction of arithmetical errors under Section 152 Civil P.C. could be made at any time and that no new facts were presented. The plaintiff further complained of not being informed of the date when his application was considered. The present revision challenges the refusal to review the correction order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a lower court can amend its decree under Section 152 of the Civil P.C. for clerical or arithmetical mistakes after the decree has merged in the decree of the appellate court.
- Whether the correction of such errors requires notice to the affected party.
- Whether a revision lies against an order refusing a review of a correction under Section 152.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The plaintiff argued that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to amend the decree after it had merged in the appellate Court's decree.
- The plaintiff contended that the correction application under Section 152 should be made to the appellate Court (High Court) and not the lower Court.
- The plaintiff claimed lack of notice of the correction application and the date of consideration.
Respondent's Arguments
- The defendant relied on Section 152, Civil P.C., which permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes at any time by the Court.
- The defendant asserted that the correction was an obvious arithmetical error and did not require notice.
- The defendant maintained that the lower Court was competent to make the correction despite the decree having merged in the appellate decree.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lakshman Maruti v. Maruti Lakshman 1924 Bom. 344 | Consideration of whether revision lies against an order refusing review. | The Court noted that although the ruling stated no revision lies against such orders, it proceeded to consider the merits and upheld the correctness of the lower Court's legal application, indicating no absolute bar to revision. |
| Brijnarain v. Tejbai Bikram Bhahadur (1910) 32 All. 295 | Whether a lower Court can amend its decree after it has merged in the appellate Court's decree. | The Court distinguished this precedent as involving striking out future interest provisions, not correction of clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 152, and held it inapplicable to the present case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the scope of Section 152, Civil P.C., which authorizes correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes "at any time" either on the Court's own motion or on application by parties. The Court interpreted the phrase "at any time" as significant enough to empower even the lower Court to amend its decree for such mistakes after the decree has merged in the appellate Court's decree. The Court found it would be inconvenient to require such corrections to be made only by the appellate Court. The Court rejected the argument that the lower Court lacked jurisdiction on this ground. It also noted that the correction concerned an obvious arithmetical error in the fee awarded. Regarding the procedural grievance of lack of notice, the Court did not expressly find fault but proceeded to consider the merits. The Court further examined the record for proper fee certificates and found a deficiency of Rs. 30 in fees. The Court allowed revision only to the extent of this Rs. 30 and dismissed it for the remaining Rs. 240, thereby varying the correction accordingly. Additionally, the Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to correct the decree under Section 152, as the amount was below Rs. 1000, which is within the competence of a Single Judge.
Holding and Implications
The revision is allowed in part and dismissed in part. Specifically, the revision is allowed concerning the Rs. 30 balance of fees and dismissed concerning the remaining Rs. 240. The correction of the decree as amended by the lower Court stands varied to this extent. The Court also corrected the appellate decree under Section 152 on its own motion. The decision confirms that lower Courts retain jurisdiction to correct clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 152 even after their decree has merged in an appellate decree, emphasizing the significance of the phrase "at any time" in the statute. No new precedent beyond this application was established. The direct effect is the partial variation of the fee correction in the decree and affirmation of the lower Court's power to make such corrections.
1. This is an application in civil revision brought by a plaintiff-decree holder against an order of 10th August 1933, of the Deputy Commissioner of Garhwal. The facts are that there was a suit brought by the plaintiff, the present applicant, asking for the cancellation of a deed of gift and a declaration that a deed of gift did not affect his rights. This suit was dismissed with costs on 29th November 1929. A first appeal was brought by the plaintiff and was decided by this Court on 17th November 1932, and was dismissed with costs. Subsequently on 10th May 1933, the defendant made an application to the Subordinate Judge to amend the decree, the application being under Section 152, Civil P.C., on the ground that there was a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the decree. The mistake in question was in regard to the fee allowed to the successful defendant. The valuation of the suit was Rs. 6,000. The percentage admissible on this was Rs. 270, but the decree contained Rs. 6.4-0 only. The Court without issuing notice to the plaintiff amended the decree on 26th June 1933. On 13th July 1933, the plaintiff made an application to the Court asking the Court to review its order on the ground that the plaintiff had no notice and on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction because according to the plaintiff the decree had merged in the decree of the appellate Court and therefore such an application for correction of a clarical or arithmetical error would only lie to the appellate Court, that is, to the High Court. The lower Court passed an order on 10th August 1933, to the effect that the error was an obvious arithmetical error, that no new facts were disclosed in the High Court, that arithmetical errors can be corrected at any time under Section 152, Civil P.C., and the application was rejected. A further grievance is made that the plaintiff states that he was not informed of the date when his application was considered. The revision is directed against this order on 10th August 1933, refusing to review the order of correction. A preliminary objection was taken that no revision lies against an order refusing a review. Learned Counsel referred to Lakshman Maruti v. Maruti Lakshman 1924 Bom. 344. This statement no doubt is laid down in that ruling, but the ruling proceeded to consider the merits of the order and held that the Court below was correct in its application of law. It therefore appears to me that the proposition in question was not laid down as an abstract one.
2. Learned Counsel referred to Brijnarain v. Tejbai Bikram Bhahadur (1910) 32 All. 295, for the proposition that the Court below could not amend its decree when the decree had merged in the decree of the appellate Court. That ruling however dealt with the case of a lower Court; amending its decree by striking out the provisions for future interest in the decree. It is obvious that this was not a case of correction of a clerical or arithmetical error under Section 152. The ruling therefore does not apply to the section in question. No authority was shown by the applicant in revision for his proposition. It appears to me that Section 152, Civil P.C, deals with the special lease of correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes. In regard to that particular class of correction the section provides that the correction may "at any time" be made by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of the parties." I consider that the words "at any time" have a special significance in this section. The significance which those words have in my opinion is that they provide for a case like the present where the decree of the Court below has merged in the decree of the appellate Court. The section in my opinion given the lower Court power even in such a case to make an amendment if the amendment is merely of a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It would be highly inconvenient if it were necessary for such mistakes to form the subject of application in this Court. If the order of his Court is desired, an application may be made in review. As regards the merits of the application, it is necessary that there should be a certificate for the receipt of fees placed on the record before the order of dismissal of the suit which was on 29th November 1929. There are three certificates on the record as follows : For Rs. 150 filed on 5th November 1929. Fur Rs. 20 filed on the same date and For Rs. 70 filed on 4th November 1929.
3. There is no certificate on the record an it stands at present for the balance of Kit, 30. Accordingly, I consider that the correct order in the interests of justice in that this revision should be allowed so far as it concerns Rs. 30 of the amount in question and that the revision should too dismissed so far as it concerns the remaining Rs. 240, that is, the correction of the decree will stand varied for Rs. 240. I may note that even if my view of the law were incorrect and it was not open to the Court below to act under this section, this decree is a decree of this appellate Court and it is still open to me to correct that decree under the provisions of section 152 and I make the correction accordingly. I may note that this is within the competence of a Single Judge as the amount in question is less than Rs. 1000.
Alert