Orissa HC Upholds Refusal To Let Heirs Swap Khata 40 For 52 In Land Decree, As It Would Change The Suit Property

The plaintiff brought T.S. No. 07 of 1995 seeking declaration of title and possession over land said to be in Plot No. 38, Khata No. 52, Betaguda Mouza.

The defendants appeared but did not file written statements and were set ex parte.

The suit was decreed on 8 November 1995, with the decree dated 21 November 1995.

When mutation was later refused because the decree referred to Khata No. 40, the plaintiff sought correction under Sections 151 and 152 CPC, asking that Khata No. 40 be replaced with Khata No. 52.

The trial court rejected the application, finding that the plaint itself referred to Khata No. 40 and that the requested change was not a clerical or accidental error.

The plaintiff’s legal representatives challenged that order under Article 227.

Section 152 CPC permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slips or omissions; it does not authorise review or resolution of a contested substantive issue.

A court may also use its inherent power under Section 151 CPC to correct its record and prevent injustice, but not to review its decision or where no mistake or slip by the court occurred (Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., (2007) 13 SCC 421, quoted at pp. 7–9).

An accidental slip may, in limited circumstances, include a party’s error where the intended meaning is unmistakable, but Section 152 cannot be used to resolve controversial matters or correct errors anterior to the proceedings (Bela Debi v. Bon Behary Roy, AIR 1952 Cal 86).

The correction considered in Belamati Digal v. Pravabati Nayak was permitted in circumstances where the parties’ pleadings and evidence made the property’s location clear and undisputed.

Article 227 provides supervisory jurisdiction; it does not warrant intervention where the trial court’s refusal discloses no basis for supervisory correction.

The requested change was not a mere correction to the court’s decree: the plaint itself described the land by Khata No. 40, and the decree followed that description.

Replacing it with Khata No. 52 would therefore alter the suit-land description and potentially its identity, rather than correct an accidental slip in the court’s record.

Because the defendants had not filed written statements, the record did not establish that they knew the plaintiff intended Khata No. 52; their failure to contest the suit concerned the land described as Khata No. 40.

The court distinguished Niyamat Ali Molla and Belamati Digal, where the property was otherwise sufficiently and undisputedly identified.

The plaintiff had not sought amendment of the plaint and could not use Sections 151 or 152 to make a substantive change after decree without affording the defendants an opportunity to contest the amended description.

The mistake originated in the plaintiff’s pleading, not in an act of the court, so the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit did not apply.

It declined to interfere under Article 227 and dismissed the CMP.