- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Balwant Singh And Another v. Jagdish Singh Cheema .
Factual and Procedural Background
Captain Jagdish Singh filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of land sold for Rs. 16,730/-. The vendees were Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The parties compromised on terms that, among other things, provided for a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff conditional on the plaintiff depositing a consolidated amount of Rs. 16,730/- in court (the plaintiff had already deposited Rs. 3,400/- and was required to deposit the balance of Rs. 13,330/- by 30 April 1968). If the plaintiff deposited the full amount in time, he would get possession after 20 May 1968 without payment for standing crops; failure to deposit would result in the suit standing dismissed as withdrawn. Defendant No. 3 was treated as an unnecessary party.
The Senior Subordinate Judge entered a decree in accordance with the compromise, but by clerical mistake the judgment and decree-sheet recorded the pre-emption amount as Rs. 16,770/- instead of Rs. 16,730/-. Jagdish Singh deposited Rs. 16,730/- within the stipulated period and moved for execution in June 1968. On 7 June 1968 the execution application was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the full pre-emption money (as recorded in the decree, i.e. Rs. 16,770/-) had not been deposited within the fixed time; the papers were ordered consigned to the record room.
Jagdish Singh then applied under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to correct the clerical/arithmetic mistake in the judgment and decree-sheet. The vendees contested that application, arguing that the plaintiff should have preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the execution application and could not resort to Sections 151–153. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge allowed the application and ordered the correction of the amount to Rs. 16,730/-. The vendees filed the present revision petition against that order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a clerical or arithmetical mistake in a judgment or decree (specifically the wrong amount recorded in the decree) can be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC after an execution application based on the erroneous decree has been dismissed.
- Whether the applicant, having had his execution application dismissed, was required to prefer an appeal against that dismissal instead of applying under Sections 151–153 of the CPC for correction of the decree.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant / Plaintiff (Captain Jagdish Singh)
- The amount wrongly mentioned in the judgment and decree was a clerical/arithmetic mistake made inadvertently through oversight.
- He filed an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC to have the mistake corrected.
- He had deposited Rs. 16,730/- within the stipulated period as required by the compromise.
Respondents / Vendees (Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh)
- Contended that, because the execution application had been dismissed on the ground that the full pre-emption money had not been deposited, the plaintiff should have preferred an appeal against that dismissal.
- Argued that the plaintiff could not properly make an application under Sections 151–153 CPC after the execution application was dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Smt. Gurdial Kaur v. Pritam Singh, 67 PLR 172 : (AIR 1966 Punj 212) | Authority supporting the proposition that errors of this kind (clerical/arithmetic mistakes in judgments or decrees) can be corrected under the relevant provisions. | The court cited this Bench decision as supporting the view that the decree could be amended to correct the accidental slip and thereby upheld the correction ordered by the trial judge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court found as a fact that the compromise required the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 16,730/- and that he had done so within the time fixed, and that the recording of Rs. 16,770/- in the judgment and decree-sheet was an accidental slip. The court relied on the plain language of Section 152 CPC, which permits correction at any time of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission, either on the court's own motion or on application of any party.
The court concluded that the application by Jagdish Singh was fully covered by Section 152 CPC and that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was entitled to correct the mistake. Addressing the respondents' objection that an appeal should have been preferred against the order dismissing execution, the court reasoned that an appellate court confronted with an appeal would have pointed out that the decree itself (as entered) showed the larger amount and that the proper remedy was correction under Section 152 CPC. Thus, an appeal would not have afforded relief and the executing court was not empowered to go behind the decree to negate an accidental slip. The court also noted that errors of this kind can be corrected suo motu or on application at any time, and that once the decree is amended the plaintiff can again sue out execution and show compliance within time.
Holding and Implications
Petition dismissed.
Direct effect on the parties: the impugned order amending the judgment and decree-sheet to record Rs. 16,730/- in place of Rs. 16,770/- was upheld, and the revision petition by the vendees failed. The plaintiff (Jagdish Singh) is thereby entitled to sue out execution again and to demonstrate to the executing court that he had complied with the decree within the stipulated time. The court made no order as to costs.
No broader precedent was purportedly created by this decision beyond applying the existing principle that clerical/arithmetic mistakes in judgments or decrees may be corrected under Section 152 CPC; the opinion expressly relied on an earlier Bench decision for support.
1. Captain Jagdish Singh filed a suit for pre-emption regarding a sale, which had taken place for Rupees 16730/-. The suit was contested by the vendees Balwant Singh and Gurcharan Singh. The matter was however, compromised between the parties on the following terms:—
“A decree for possession be preemption of the suit land measuring 24 Kanals 16 Marlas as detailed in the heading of the plaint and the sale deed Exhibit D. 1 may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants conditional on deposit of a consolidated amount of Rs. 16730/- in court by the plaintiff for payment to the vendees Nos. 1 and 2 only. This may be granted to the plaintiff to deposit the balance of pre-emption money amounting to Rs. 13330/- as he has already deposited in court Rs. 3400/- on account of the 1/5th of the pre-emption money, and of the failure of the plaintiff to deposit the entire pre-emption money within time, by 30th of April, 1968, the suit of the plaintiff shall stand dismissed as withdrawn, i.e also agreed between the parties that in case the plaintiff deposits in court the entire pre-emption money within time, he would be entitled to get possession of the suit land after 20th May, 1968, without payment of any compensation for the standing crops if any. The parties be, however, left to bear their own costs of this suit. Defendant No. 3 is an unnecessary party of the suit and the plaintiff does not claim any relief against him because he is vendor. The counsel for the plaintiff admitted this above statement to be correct”
2. In view of this settlement, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge Gurdaspur in whose Court the case was pending, passed a decree in accordance with the said compromise. Both in the judgment and the decree, however, by a clerical mistake the amount of pre-emption money to be paid by the pre-emptor to the vendees was mentioned as Rs. 16770/- in place of Rs. 16730/-. In June 1968, Jagdish Singh took out execution of the decree after having deposited Rs. 16730/- within the stipulated period. On 7th June, 1968, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dismissed the said execution application, observing that it was not maintainable inasmuch as the entire pre-emption money had not been deposited within the fixed time. He further ordered that the papers be consigned to file record room. Thereafter, Jagdish Singh made an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC, for making the necessary correction in the amount of the pre-emption money mentioned in the judgment and the decree-sheet, as, according to him, the mistake was a clerical one and had been made inadvertently through an oversight. This application was contested by the vendees saying that Jagdish Singh should have preferred an appeal against the order dismissing the execution application on the ground that the full pre-emption money had not been deposited within the stipulated time. According to them, the plaintiff could not make an application under Sections 151 to 153 of the CPC, as he had done.
3. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge accepted the application for the amendment of the judgment and the decree and ordered that the amount of Rs. 16730/- be written in place of Rupees 16770/- therein. He observed that no litigant should suffer by an arithmetical mistake committed by the Court. He also held that the application filed by Jagdish Singh was competent and it did not make any difference if he had previously filed an execution application, which had been dismissed. Against this decision, the vendees have filed the present revision petition.
4. There is no dispute that according to the compromise, the pre-emptor had to deposit only Rs. 16730/- for payment to the vendees and that he had done within the time fixed. It was, however due to some accidental slip that the amount mentioned in the judgment and the decree-sheet was Rs. 16770/- instead of Rs. 16730/-. According to Section 152 of the CPC, such an error can at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The said section says that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. The application made by Jagdish Singh was therefore fully covered by the provisions of this section and the said mistake could be corrected by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge. The impugned order, therefore, in my view was in accordance with law.
5. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that since the pre-emptor had taken out execution of the decree, in which the amount had been erroneously entered as Rs. 16770/-, and the learned Senior Subordinate Judge had dismissed that execution application on the ground that the entire pre-emption money had not been deposited within the stipulated time, the pre-emptor should have filed an appeal against the order, which amounted to a decree. In face of that order, according to the learned counsel, Jagdish Singh could not move an application under Sections 151 to 153 of the CPC.
6. I find no merit an this objection. Assuming for the sake of argument that the pre-emptor could go up in appeal against the order passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, dismissing his execution application, he could not have succeeded there. He would have been met with the plea that the decree, as it stood, mentioned the amount of Rs. 16770/- and as the pre-emptor had not deposited that amount, the executing Court was well within its rights to dismiss the execution application. Obviously, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree if there was an arithmetical error or an accidental slip in framing the decree, the appellate Court would have said that the proper remedy was to apply for the amendment of the decree under Section 152 of the CPC, and this is precisely what the plaintiff has done.
7. Errors of this kind, as I have already mentioned above, can be corrected by the Court suo motu or on the application of any of the parties at any time. When the decree is amended the plaintiff can again sue out execution of the same and show to the executing Court that he had already complied with it well within time.
8. The view that I have taken finds support in a Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Gurdial Kaur v. Pritam Singh, 67 PLR 172 : (AIR 1966 Punj 212).
9. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but I will make no order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.
Alert