1. The circumstances under which this appeal has been preferred, are not in controversy before this Court. The appellant made an application to the Settlement Officer of Balasore for amendment of a Record-of-Rights prepared under Ch. 10, Ben. Ten. Act. His allegation was that the name of one Jadunath Sen had been interpolated in the Record-of-Rights, and that what purported to be the initials of the Assistant Settlement Officer placed against the interpolation, were forgeries. The Settlement Officer entertained the application and made an inquiry in the presence of the representative of Jadunath Sen who, it was found, had died some time previously. He came to the conclusion that the interpolation was entirely unauthorized, and that the Assistant Settlement Officer had not attested the interpolation; what purported to be the initials of that officer were clear forgeries. In this view, the Settlement Officer directed the name of Jadunath Sen to be struck out of the record; and he added that he took this action under Section 108-A of the Ben. Ten. Act. The representative of Jadunath Sen thereupon appealed to the Special Judge. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was incompetent. This objection was overruled. As regards the merits, no attempt was made before the Special Judge to controvert the conclusion of the Settlement Officer. But it was contended for the appellant that the order of the primary Court was without jurisdiction, as S. 108-A authorizes a specially empowered Revenue Officer to correct an entry in a finally published Record-of-Rights, only when he is satisfied that the entry has been made owing to a bona fide mistake. The Special Judge has accepted this contention as well founded and has set aside the order of the Settlement Officer as made without jurisdiction. The propriety of the order of the Special Judge is now called in question before us, and the petitioner, who moved the Court of first instance, has, by way of caution, preferred an appeal as also taken out a rule, so that no question may arise as to the nature of the jurisdiction invoked. In our opinion, the order of the Special Judge cannot possibly be supported, and, indeed, no serious endeavour has been made on behalf of the respondent to justify it.
2. Section 108-A of the Ben. Ten. Act, authorizes the correction of entries in a Record-of-Rights, which have been made owing to a bona fide mistake; the scope of the section was explained by this Court in Raj Mohan Guha v. Alarn Gazi . [1912] 17 I.C 279.. It need not be disputed that in the case before us, the entry had not been made owing to a bona fide mistake on the part of the Settlement Officer or of any of the parties. What had happened in substance was that the Record-of-Rights had been drawn up accurately but an unauthorized interpolation had been made in it. This plainly is not a case of correction of an entry made in the Record-of-Rights owing to a bona fide mistake. To this extent, we agree with the Special Judge. But it does not follow that the action of the Settlement Officer was without jurisdiction.
3. It is a power inherent in every Court to take steps for the preservation of the accuracy of its records. That the Court has power to amend its record when it is found that what has been recorded does not accurately represent what has been directed by the Court, is unquestioned. Lord Penzance said, in Lawrie v. Lees . [1882] 7 A.C 19, that every Court has the power to vary its own order, when drawn up mechanically in the office of the Court so as to carry out its own meaning. In Hatton v. Harris . [1892] A.C 547. Lord Watson said that it is always within the competency of a Court, if nothing has intervened which would render it inexpedient or inequitable to do so, to correct the record in order to bring it into harmony with the order which the Judge obviously meant to pronounce. The position is very much stronger when what has been ordered by the Court has been correctly recorded and has subsequently been altered without authority and the alteration has been sought to be supported by forged initials of a Judicial Officer so as to make detection difficult if not impossible.
4. In our opinion, in a case of this description, not only has the Court inherent authority to set the record right, but it is incumbent upon the Court to take the necessary action as soon as it has been apprised of what is in essence a grand fraud upon the Court. In this view, the order of the Settlement Officer was made in the exercise of his undoubted jurisdiction. It is further plain that from this standpoint, no appeal really lay to the Special Judge against the order of the Settlement Officer because an appeal lies to him under S. 109-A, only if the order has been made under S. 108-A. But if we apply the principle recognized in Bindesivari Prosad Singh v. Thakur Lakhpat Nath Singh . [1910] 8 I.C 26., it may be held that as the Settlement Officer purported to act under S. 108-A, an appeal against his order did lie to the Special Judge, and as the Special Judge himself purported to act under S. 109-A, sub-S. 2, a second appeal lies to this Court under sub-S. 3, S. 109-A. It is competent to the Court, consequently, to hear the appeal and to set aside the decision of the Special Judge. On the other hand, if the respondent insist that no second appeal lies to this Court, because the appeal to the Special Judge was incompetent, the order of the Special Judge must, on that ground alone, be set aside in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction, for which purpose a rule has been granted. The respondent is consequently in a dilemma from which there is no escape. The result is that this appeal is allowed, the order of the Special Judge discharged and that of the Settlement Officer restored. This order will carry costs in all the Courts; we assess the hearing-fee in this Court at two gold mohars.
5. It is conceded that this judgment will govern the other appeal (Second Appeal No. 2028 of 1910), in which a similar order will be drawn up.
V.B/R.K
6. Appeal allowed.