PURNA CHANDRA MOHANTY vs STATE OF ORISSA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
CMP/470/2016
ODHC010325452016
2026:OHC:272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 470 of 2016
CNR No. ODHC010325452016
An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Purna Chandra Mohanty (dead)through
his LRs
1. Hemalata Mohanty
2. Srotoswini Mohanty
3. Jasaswini Mohanty
4. Manaswinee Mohanty @ Manaswini
Mohanty
5. Tejaswini Mohanty
….
(Plaintiff)
Petitioners
-versus-
1. State of Orissa
2. The Tahasildar, Parlakhemundi,
District-Gajapati
… .
Opposite Parties
(Defendants)
Advocates who has appeared in this case through Hybrid
Mode:
For Petitioners : Mr. S.K. Dash,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
HON’BLE M ISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
………………………………………………….……………………
Date of Hearing: 04.08.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 31.10.2026
………………………………………………………………………
Savitri Ratho, J. This CMP has been filed by the Plaintiff challenging the
order dated 09.10.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge,
Parlakhemundi in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2023 rejecting his application
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 1 of 14
filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC for correcting the Khata
number in the schedule annexed to the decree dated 21.11.1995 in
T.S. No. 07 of 1995 and to amend the decree by deleting Khata No.
40 and replacing it with Khata No. 52 of Betaguda Mouza.
2. During pendency of the CMP, the Plaintiff-Petitioner
expired and has been substituted by his legal heirs whose names are
mentioned in the cause title of this judgment.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The Plaintiff filed T.S. No.07/1995 before the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division) Parlakhemundi seeking a decree for
declaration of his right, title and possession over suit land and for
permanent injunction against the Defendants from interfering with
his right, title and possession over the land.
4. The case of the Plaintiff was that his father, Purna
Chandra Mohanty was an employee under the late Maharaja in
Parlakhemundi as the keeper of the Armory. Besides his salary his
father was allowed to cultivate some lands measuring Ac.2.94 decs
situated in mouza Betagada appertaining to plot no.38, khata no.52 as
per the last settlement. His father converted the said land into
cultivable land in the year 1945 after due reclamation. Since then he
was in cultivating possession of the suit land. Due to ill health of his
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 2 of 14
father, the Plaintiff took over cultivation of the land in the year 1962.
Thus the Plaintiff and his father both were regularly cultivating the
land and growing paddy crop therein continuously to the knowledge
of the Revenue authority. The Plaintiff perfected his right over the
suit land by way of his cultivating possession for the last 30 years. In
the years 1974-75 the Survey Settlement started and in the year 1979
the R.O.R. was published. In the settlement operation, the suit
property was wrongly recorded in the name of government as the
plaintiff and his father could not submit their claim over the property
before the authorities.
5. Notice was issued to the Defendants and they appeared
in the case and sought for time to file written statement. They did not
file written statement for which, they were set ex parte on 15.09.1995
and hearing was taken up. The Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1
and exhibited the postal receipts showing issuance of summon to the
Defendants. After hearing the Plaintiff, ex parte judgment was passed
against the Defendants/ Opposite Parties declaring the right, title,
interest and possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land vide
judgment dated 08.11.1995 and decree dated 21.11.1995.
6. After the decree was passed, the Petitioner applied for
mutation of the case land i.e. Khata No.52, Plot No.38 before the
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 3 of 14
Tahasildar, Parlakhemundi. But the Tahasildar refused to mutate the
land i.e. Khata No.52, Plot No.38 as the judgment and decree
pertained to Khata No.40.
7. The Petitioner filed an application under Sections 151
and 152 of the C.P.C. in the suit to correct the Khata Number in the
schedule annexed to the decree and amend the decree by deleting
Khata No. 40 and adding Khata No. 52 of Betaguda Mouza in its
place.
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.10.2015
8. After receiving the application, the learned trial Court
called for the original case record from the District Record Room,
perused the plaint dated 29.03.1995, ordersheets in T.S. No. 07 of
1995, the judgment and the original decree and rejected the
application, holding that perusal of the plaint reveals that the Khata
Number mentioned in the plaint was 40 and order had been passed in
respect of Khata No.40 and not Khata No. 52. The relief was granted
to the Plaintiff in accordance with the prayer in his plaint and the
prayer for change of Khata Number does not come under the purview
of Section 151 or 152 of the CPC. It was neither a clerical nor
arithmetical mistake or an error arising from any accidental slip or
omission and that change in Khata Number would go to the very root
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 4 of 14
of the case and lead to further litigation and completion.
SUBMISSIONS
9. I have heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing
Counsel.
PETITIONER
10.
Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioners
submits that since notice had been issued to the Opposite Parties
(Defendants) in the suit but they did not choose to file any written
statement, they will not be prejudiced in case the schedule
description of land is corrected by changing the Khata Number from
40 to 52 as the boundaries of the suit land were correct. He also
submits that the learned trial Court has erroneously rejected the
application holding that it does not come within the purview of
Sections 151 or 152 of the CPC. As only the Khata Number was
sought to be corrected, it would not amount to review of the
judgment and decree and should have been allowed and any
accidental slip or omission by a party leading to an incorrect detail in
the judgment and decree can also be corrected by exercise of power
under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. In support of his
submission, he relies on the decision of this Court in the case of
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 5 of 14
Belamati Digal and Another vrs. Pravabati Nayak and Others (in
th
CMP No. 1308 of 2024 decided on 8 August, 2025) and the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla vrs.
Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others : 2007
INSC 1070: (2007) 13 SCC 421.
STATE COUNSEL
11.
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel
submits that no interference is called for with the impugned order in
as much as the learned trial Court has specifically observed in the
impugned order that the Court passed the order in respect of Khata
No.40 and not in respect of Khata No.52 and the decree has been
granted to the plaintiff as per prayer in his plaint and the prayer for
changing the Khata Number does not come under the purview of
Section 151 or Section 152 of the CPC as it is not a clerical or
arithmetical mistake or an error arising from any accidental slip or
omission. Any change in the Khata Number will affect the root of
the case and lead to further complication and litigation. The learned
trial Court had rightly held that the decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the parties are different on facts in the present case. Mr.
Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel further submits that
without amending the plaint, the prayer of the Petitioner-Plaintiff to
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 6 of 14
amend the decree cannot be granted as that would grant an
opportunity to the Defendants to file written statement to the
amended plaint. But after disposal of the suit, the question of
amendment of the plaint does not arise.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
12. In the case of Bela Debi vs Bon Behary Roy and
another : AIR 1952 Cal 86 ,
the Calcutta High Court has held that
Section 152 of the CPC applies where the accidental slip is of the
Court or of its ministerial officers and may extend to accidental slip
or omission attributable to the parties where the mistake is so
palpable that there can be no doubt as to what the parties meant or
what the Court meant. But such power should not be exercised for
resolving controversial points and cannot correct errors anterior to
the proceedings before it .
13. In the case of Niyamat Ali Molla ( supra) , the Supreme
Court has held as follows: -
“19.Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent
power of the Court. It is not only confined to the
amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged
under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power
in general. The Courts also have duty to see that
the records are true and present the correct state of
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 7 of 14
affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt
whatsoever that the Court cannot exercise the said
jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot
also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or
slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision,
in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in
a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be
corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power
under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the Court is
well recognized.”
“26.It is not a case where the defendants could be
said to have been misled. It is now well settled that
the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their
entirety. They are to be construed liberally and not in
a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by
reason of an amendment, one property is being
substituted by the other. If the Court has the requisite
power to make an amendment of the decree, the
same would not mean that it had gone beyond the
decree or passing any decree. The statements
contained in the body of the plaint have sufficiently
described the suit lands. Only because some blanks
in the schedule of the property have been left, the
same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the
respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the
appellant herein did not file any written statement, he
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 8 of 14
did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined
himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was
aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that
an Advocate-Commissioner has also been appointed.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the
JL numbers in the schedule was missing, the same
by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the
impugned order.”
14. Relying on the decision in Bela Debi ( supra ) , this Court
Belamati Digal
in the case of ( supra) , has held as follows : -
“ 11. Having noted the ratio decided in the cited cases,
this Court would once again refer to the facts of the case
to observe that the case is not one wherein there was
any doubt as regards the location of the suit property by
either of the parties. Notwithstanding the mistake in the
plaint schedule, the averments made in the plaint and
the written statement coupled with the admission of
D.W.1 in her evidence, makes the position clear. So, it is
not a case where correcting the Mouza would mislead
anyone much less the defendant. In other words, the
defendants cannot be said to be taken by the surprise.
Having admitted that the property situates in Mouza
Piserama in their written statement they cannot take the
plea that had a petition been filed by the plaintiffs for
amendment of the plaint, they would have had the
opportunity of filling an additional written statement.
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 9 of 14
Assuming such an application had been filed then, in
view of the specific pleading in their written statement
quoted above, admitting the location of the suit property
in Mouza Piserama, they obviously could not have taken
a different view. So, this is not a case where any
controversy exists as regards location of the suit land
necessitating further enquiry.”
As regards the scope of Section 151 of the CPC , the
Court held as follows : -
13. True, on the face of an available provision, the
“
Section 151 cannot ordinarily be taken resort to and that
the power under Section 151 has to be with for
circumspection and care but then, if in a case like the
present one, where grave injustice would result by non-
exercise of such power, the Court should not shy away
from doing so. It is stated at the cost of repetition that it
would prevent the decree holder from getting its
benefits, thereby rendering it a paper decree. The Court
below must therefore, be deemed to have exercised its
inherent power under Section 151 of CPC along with
Section 152 of CPC.
14. From the foregoing narration, this Court is left with
no doubt that the Court below approached the issue
from the right perspective and has passed the impugned
order to ensure that the decree holder is not deprived of
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 10 of 14
the fruits of the decree passed in his favour. As between
an unenforceable and the technical consideration of
limitation on exercise of power under Section 152, the
cause of former obviously has to be advanced. The
Court below must therefore, be held to have rightly
allowed the application for correction
.”
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
15. In the case of Belamati Digal (supra), the learned trial
Court had allowed the application filed by the Plaintiff for correction
of the name of the Mouza from ‘Raikia’ to ‘Piserama’ in the suit
schedule holding that the Defendants had admitted that the name of
the Mouza was Piserama and in the ROR, marked as Ext-1, the name
of the Mouza had been mentioned as Piserama. This Court dismissed
the CMP holding that it was within the knowledge of both parties that
the suit land is situated in Mouza Piserama and not Raikia.
16. In the case of Niyamat Ali Molla ( supra ) , the Appellant
(defendant) had not filed any written statement but had examined
himself as a witness .The suit was decreed against the defendant after
which the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint
and the decree containing the schedule of the property as there were
some blanks in the schedule. The objection of the defendant to the
amendment was rejected and the amendment allowed by the
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 11 of 14
Executing Court holding that as the Defendant had examined himself
as witness and hence was aware of the issues in the suit and it cannot
be said that the defendants could have been misled and after reading
of the pleadings it cannot be said that a particular property was being
substituted by another as the statements in the pleadings had suitably
described the land .
17. Niyamat Ali Molla
The principles decided in the cases of
( supra) and Belamati Digal ( supra ) are no longer res integra . It is
however apparent that the facts of the present case are distinguishable
from the facts in the cases of Niyamat Ali Molla and Belamati Digal
(supra).
18. In the present case, written statement had not been filed by the
defendants. Hence it is not possible to ascertain if the Defendants
were aware of the mistake in the Khata number as it was in the case
in Belamati Digal (supra) and Niyamat Ali Molla (supra) .
19. Change of Khata Number will result to change the description
and identity of the suit land and would amend to a review.
20. In the present case, it is true that the defendants had failed to
file any written statement. But as the suit had been decreed on the
basis of the description of the land given by the plaintiff, correction of
the judgment ad decree could have been permitted only after the
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 12 of 14
Khata number in the plaint had been amended and the Defendants
afforded opportunity to file written statement thereafter. The Plaintiff
cannot be allowed to take advantage of his / her own mistake of
mentioning the wrong Khata number in the plaint and presumably in
his deposition without amendment of the plaint.
21. The submission of Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the
Petitioners that since notice had been issued to the Opposite Parties
(Defendants) in the suit but they did not choose to file any written
statement, they will not be prejudiced is not acceptable as because
their failure to file written statement was in respect of Khata No. 40
and not Khata No. 52. Change in khata number could only have been
permitted by allowing amendment of the description of the case land
and giving opportunity to the defendants to file written statement and
contest the suit . But no application for amendment has been filed.
22. The submission of the learned counsel that unless the decree is
corrected, it will be un executable and therefor correction should have
been allowed as the Petitioner should not suffer or any mistake in the
decree is liable for rejection as the mistake in Khata Number in the
plaint and consequently in the judgment and decree was not
attributable to the Court. So the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem
Gravabit will not come to the rescue of the Plaintiff – Petitioner.
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 13 of 14
23. In view of the above discussion, I do not consider this to be a
fit case for exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to interfere with the impugned order.
24. The C.M.P. is accordingly dismissed.
………………….
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
st
Dated, the 31 October, 2026 /Puspa
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 05-Nov-2026 20:27:25
CMP No. 470 of 2016 Page 14 of 14