Executing Court Can Correct Clerical Misdescription of Property in Decree Under Section 47 CPC

The respondents’ predecessor filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell (dated 31.12.1967) for a house.

While the body of the plaint correctly identified the property as situated in Mohalla-Siklapur, the boundaries at the foot of the plaint erroneously listed the location as Mohalla-Gulab Nagar.

The suit was eventually decreed in 1975, and the decree was confirmed by the High Court in 2006.

During execution (Execution Case No. 50 of 1994), the decree-holders moved an application under Sections 151/152/153 and Section 47 of the CPC to correct the location from "Gulab Nagar" to "Siklapur" in the decree.

The executing court initially rejected the application, but the Revisional Court (District Judge) set aside the rejection, following which the executing court allowed the correction.

The petitioners challenged these orders, arguing the executing court cannot go behind or amend a decree.

Section 47 of the CPC, which mandates that the executing court determine all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree.

Principle that Section 47 should be liberally construed to prevent unnecessary litigation [Ramchandra Spg. & Wvg. Mills v. Bijli Cotton Mills].

Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC regarding the inherent power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from accidental slips.

A successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of a decree due to inadvertent description errors [Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad].

Bona fide clerical mistakes in Khasra numbers or locations can be rectified to subserve the cause of justice [Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi].

The court found that the identity of the property was never in doubt, as the petitioners (defendants) had admitted the averments in paragraph 1 of the plaint which correctly identified the location as Mohalla-Siklapur.

The error at the foot of the plaint was characterized as a "typographical" and "accidental slip."

The court reasoned that while an executing court generally cannot go behind a decree, it is competent to look into the pleadings and judgment to resolve ambiguities or clarify the identity of the suit property.

The court rejected the petitioners' argument on the doctrine of merger, noting that the issue was not about amending the legal merits of the appellate decree, but about the executing court's power under Section 47 to ensure the decree is correctly implemented.

It concluded that requiring a separate suit or a return to the trial court for a clerical correction after decades of litigation would defeat the ends of justice.

On Issue 2, it held that the doctrine of merger does not bar such corrections at the execution stage when the identity of the property is clear from the records.

The petitions were dismissed, and the orders of the executing and revisional courts allowing the amendment of the property description from "Gulab Nagar" to "Siklapur" were upheld.