A.R.A.R Somasundaram... v. Thirumala Gondama Go...

1. There are palpable clerical errors in the decree as it stands. Those errors consist in the misdescription of the boundaries of the properties in Sch. A. The names of the seven villages and the sub-district, the taluq and the district in which they are situated are all correctly given but instead of describing each village as bounded on the north by such and such a property (say property A), bounded on the east by such and such a property (say property B) and so on, they were described as to the north of A, to the south of B and so on, thus making the description by boundaries palpably erroneous.

2. In connexion with very similar errors which had crept into a decree, this Court held in Narayanasami v. Natesa(1), that such errors could and ought to be corrected by an application under Section 206 of the (old CPC,) corresponding to Section 152 of the new CPC, even though the errors had crept into the decree by its having followed the similar errors made in the plaint.

3. There is no dispute in this case as to what the lands intended to be affected by the litigation and the decree are. Following the ruling of Narayanasami v. Natesa we hold that the time when the clerical errors (provided they are as in this case palpable clerical errors) were first introduced in the transactions or proceedings between the parties is immaterial and that the Court has got power to amend such clerical errors if they are found in the decree without the necessity of having the prior pleadings in which the same errors had formerly appeared themselves amended as a preliminary requisite to the amendment of the decree.

4. We therefore grant this petition for amendment as prayed for. The respondents will pay the petitioner's costs of this application as they ought not to have opposed it.

S.N/R.K

5. Petition granted.