Substantive relief cannot be added to an order through a “for being mentioned” correction.

The writ petitioner sought a direction requiring the State to deposit Rs. 11,25,292, with 15% interest until deposit, and to pay 15% interest on Rs. 50,09,724 for the specified period, to the credit of LAOP No. 1429 of 2008.

The State submitted that Rs. 11,25,292 had been deposited in the wrong land-acquisition case and would be withdrawn and redeposited in the correct case.

On 2 July 2025, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on that basis, permitting the redeposit.

When the matter was later listed “for being mentioned” to correct the petitioner’s name in the cause title, the Single Judge also amended the order to include the claimed interest directions.

The State appealed that amendment.

Whether the petitioner’s name could be corrected in the order when the matter was listed “for being mentioned”.

Whether, in that proceeding, the Single Judge could add substantive directions for interest that had not formed part of the original disposal order.

The Court relied on the principle that a matter listed “for being mentioned” may be used to correct small clerical or arithmetical errors, but not to reconsider or substantively alter an order; an aggrieved party must seek relief through an appropriate application under law.

It cited K.K. Arunachalam v. K. Nallusamy, 1995 (2) L.W. 456, which explains that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a procedure for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors, and that a party cannot use an oral “being mentioned” procedure to obtain fresh consideration or relief.

Correcting the petitioner’s name to reflect the cause title of the writ petition was a permissible correction.

However, adding directions for 15% interest on the amounts in question went beyond correcting the name or another clerical error: it granted substantive relief that was not included in the 2 July 2025 disposal order, which had only accepted the State’s undertaking to redeposit the amount in the correct LAOP.

Applying the principle in K.K. Arunachalam, the Court held that such relief could not be introduced through a “for being mentioned” listing.

The portion of the order incorporating the directions for 15% interest was set aside; the correction of the petitioner’s name was not disturbed.

The respondent was granted liberty to pursue appropriate relief in accordance with law.