### Correction of Preliminary Decree Under Section 152 CPC Cannot Be Barred Solely by Inordinate Delay

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a partition suit (O.S. No. 27/1995) which was subsequently amended via I.A. No. V on 14.06.1994 to include agricultural land bearing Survey No. 120, measuring 18 acres 21 guntas

Although the Trial Court framed Issue No. 2 regarding the validity of the alienation of Survey No. 120 and answered it in favor of the plaintiff—holding that the alienation did not bind the plaintiff's share—the property was inadvertently omitted from the formal preliminary decree

The petitioner filed I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 under Section 152 of the CPC to correct this omission.

The Trial Court rejected the applications citing a delay of 5,638 days and relying on a judgment in RSA No. 929/2003

Whether the omission of a property from a preliminary decree despite a specific finding in the judgment constitutes an "accidental omission" rectifiable under Section 152 of the CPC

Whether an application for correction of a decree under Section 152 of the CPC can be rejected solely on the ground of inordinate delay in a partition suit

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in judgments and decrees

Nareppa v. Chikkavenkatarayappa (W.P. No. 1170/2013), establishing that the power under Section 152 extends to making the decree conform to the judgment and pleadings even after the decree is passed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

In partition suits, rights are pre-existing and the decree merely declares these rights; thus, the right to seek partition continues until the final decree is drawn

The Court reasoned that since the property (Survey No. 120) was added through a valid amendment and specifically adjudicated upon under Issue No. 2, its absence in the decree was a manifest "accidental omission"

The Court observed that Section 152 is intended to ensure the decree faithfully reflects the judgment

Regarding delay, the Court held that because a partition decree recognizes pre-existing rights that persist until actual division by metes and bounds, mere lapse of time cannot extinguish substantive rights or bar the rectification of a clerical oversight

The Court found the Trial Court’s reliance on RSA No. 929/2003 misplaced, as that case did not override the Court’s duty to correct its own errors to reflect its findings

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Trial Court's order dated 03.09.2014; it allowed I.A. Nos. 6 and 7 and directed the Registry of the Trial Court to draw a fresh preliminary decree including Survey No. 120, clarified that any rights accrued to purchasers remain protected as per RSA No. 929/2003