Typographical errors in compromise applications may be corrected under Section 151 and 153 CPC to ensure justice.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction based on a Will dated 16.02.2021.

During the suit, the parties entered into a lawful compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, supported by a partition report (Fard Batankan) dated 23.03.2022.

However, in paragraph 3 of the compromise application, the word "plaintiffs" was accidentally typed instead of "defendants No. 1 to 4" regarding the allotment of specific survey numbers.

A compromise decree was passed on 17.07.2025 based on this reflecting error.

All parties jointly moved an application under Sections 151 and 153 CPC to correct this clerical mistake, but the Trial Court rejected it on 26.02.2026, stating the application had already been signed by the parties.

The petitioners subsequently moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 153 CPC by refusing to correct a typographical and clerical error in a compromise application and decree.

2. Whether procedural errors in a recorded compromise can be corrected when there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property or the intent of the parties.

Section 151 CPC, which preserves the inherent powers of the Court to ensure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

Section 153 CPC, which grants the Court general power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding.

Procedural laws are "handmaids of justice" and should not defeat substantive rights.

Principle from Butto Bai and Another vs. Dumri and Others (Civil Revision No. 256 of 2023) establishing that if there is no dispute regarding the identity of the land, clerical errors regarding survey/khasra numbers in judgments and decrees can and should be corrected under the Court's remedial powers.

The High Court observed that the Fard Batankan (partition report) annexed to the compromise application specifically allotted the disputed survey numbers to the defendants/petitioners, not the plaintiffs.

The Court noted that since the plaintiffs had already been allotted separate lands in a different paragraph of the same application, the repetition of their name in paragraph 3 was an "obvious" and "evident" clerical mistake.

The Court reasoned that because all parties jointly sought the correction and there was no dispute over the identity of the property or the terms of the settlement, the Trial Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction—on the mere ground that the parties had signed the document—was a failure to secure the ends of justice.

The Court emphasized that the intention of the parties was abundantly clear from the record.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's order dated 26.02.2026 and allowed the application under Sections 151 and 153 CPC.

The Trial Court was directed to substitute the words "defendants No. 1 to 4" for "plaintiffs" in paragraph 3 of the compromise application and to make the consequential corrections in the compromise decree dated 17.07.2025.

The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.