Section 152 CPC permits correction of accidental property-description errors in plaint and decree where identity is undisputed.

The plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12 February 2008 concerning 1.50 acres of land bearing Survey No. 11/1 at Village Garha Brahman, Bhopal.

Although the agreement described the land as situated in Tahsil Berasiya, the plaint and consequential judgment and decree described it as situated in Tahsil Huzur. The suit was contested throughout with reference to the same survey number, area, village and Patwari Halka, and was ultimately decreed.

The plaintiff later sought correction under Section 152 CPC, but the Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 22 December 2023, giving rise to the revision.

The record showed that Village Garha Brahman, Patwari Halka No. 03/01 was situated only in Tahsil Berasiya and not in Tahsil Huzur, and no dispute was raised regarding the identity of the land.

Whether the reference to “Tahsil Huzur” instead of “Tahsil Berasiya” constituted an accidental slip or omission capable of correction under Section 152 CPC.

Whether, in such circumstances, the plaint could also be corrected under Section 152 CPC in addition to the judgment and decree.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff’s correction application.

Section 152 CPC empowers a court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes and errors arising from accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees or orders.

The Court relied on Mohinder Singh v. Teja Singh, AIR 1979 P&H 47, for the principle that a mistaken property or khasra description may be corrected where the correction does not alter the identity of the subject property.

It further relied on Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., (2007) 13 SCC 421, which holds that Section 152 is not confined to slips made exclusively by the court and may apply where an accidental mistake in the parties’ pleadings has been repeated in the judgment or decree, provided there is no reasonable doubt about the property or the court’s intention and no disputed question requiring fresh adjudication.

The Court also applied the principles in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan, (2003) 1 SCC 197, and the coordinate Bench decision in Butto Bai v. Dumri, C.R. No. 256 of 2023, that correction is permissible where the documentary record establishes the true description and the identity of the property is undisputed.

The agreement to sell, Exhibit P/1, identified the property as land in Village Garha Brahman, Tahsil Berasiya, measuring 1.50 acres in Survey No. 11/1, whereas only the plaint and consequential decree referred to Tahsil Huzur.

Since Berasiya and Huzur are both tahsils of Bhopal, the erroneous reference to Huzur was treated as an inadvertent typographical or drafting error.

The consistent description by village, survey number, area and Patwari Halka, together with the fact that Garha Brahman, Patwari Halka No. 03/01 existed only in Tahsil Berasiya, removed any doubt regarding the identity of the property.

The correction therefore did not substitute one property for another, reopen the merits, or prejudice the respondents.

Applying Section 152 CPC and the cited authorities, the Court held that the mistake was an accidental slip and that consequential correction could extend to the plaint as well as the judgment and decree.

The judgment and decree dated 1 October 2012 and the plaint were permitted to be corrected so that “Tahsil Huzur” wherever appearing would be read as “Tahsil Berasiya”.

The Trial Court was directed to permit the plaintiff to take consequential steps, and the revision was disposed of accordingly.