Hansabai Shripati Bhosale Vs. Smt. Parubai Gopal Bhosale, - Court Judgment

Mridula Bhatkar, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, S.D., Pune on 25/3/2008 allowing the amendment in the plaint under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('The Code' for short).

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The respondents/original plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 257/96 against the petitioner/original defendants for declaration and entering their names in the record of rights about Gat No. 1238 of Mouje Winzar , Tal. Velhe, Dist. Pune. The said suit was decreed on 27/3/2003.No appeal was filed. However, on 25/3/2008 the respondents i.e.original plaintiffs made application under Section 151 and 152 of the Code for making amendment in the plaint and correction in the judgment and decree in respect of the description of the suit property which was wrongly described as Gat No. 1938 instead of Gat No. 1238. The learned Judge allowed the application by holding that the errors are due to accidental slip and it was necessary to correct to meet the ends of justice.

SUBMISSIONS

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this is not an accidental slip or arithmetical error int he judgment but it is an error committed by the plaintiff while describing the property and,therefore, the application cannot be entertained under Sections 151 or 152 of the Code. The respondents should have opted other mode for the relief i.e.either by filing review application or revision .He has further submitted that such type of amendment goes to the root of the case and it is beyond the scope of Sections 151 or 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has further submitted that as the decree was passed in respect of Gat No. 1938 and the petitioner was not concerned about said Gat number, hence the petitioner did not file appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. Allowing such amendment is prejudicial to the petitioner. The application for correction was made five years after the date of judgment ,so on the ground of lapses also the learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Trial Judge. In support of his submissions he relied on:

[1] State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh : 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 565.

[2] Dwarakadas v. State of M.P.and Anr. : (1999)3 Supreme Court Cases,500.

[3] State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Roshan Singh(Dead)by Lrs. and Ors. : (2008)2 Supreme Court Cases 488.

It is submitted that the corrections under Section 153 of the Code in the plaint is permitted only if the suit is pending and not after the suit is decided.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that Sections 151 or 152 of the Code are basically meant to do the real and substantial justice. So the application is covered under the said sections. He has further submitted that the plaintiffs have filed this application after five years because during the process of entering the names on record a query was raised from the concerned authority about the Gat numbers and thereafter the respondents realised of this mistake and they approached the Court. He has further submitted that though Gat number was wrongly mentioned, all the four boundaries of the land were correctly described so the defendant had clear knowledge of the property in dispute and therefore,there was no reason for the petitioner/defendant to have any misconception of the fact regarding location and identification of the suit property. He placed reliance on the following rulings.

[1] Ganesh v. Sri.Ram Lalaji Mahraj Birajamn Mandir and Ors. : AIR 1973 Allahabad 116.

[2] Pratibha Singh and Anr. v. Shanti Devi Prasad and Anr. : AIR,2002,Supreme Court,643.

[3] Rania v. Smt. Kamla Devi and Anr. : AIR 1976 Himachal Pradesh 57.

[4] Narhari Balku Kavade(Deceased)and Ors. v. Hanmanta Timma Pujari (Deceased and Ors. 2004(4)ALL MR 356.

CONSIDERATION :

5. The Civil Courts are vested with inherent powers and also general powers to rectify the mistake or error in the proceedings or judgment or decree under Sections 151 or 152, and 153 of the Code so as to do justice between the parties. The Civil Court Proceedings are initiated,conducted ,monitored and decided by human beings and in such complex process error/mistake is likely to occur. To anticipate all types of possible errors or mistakes and to lay down a specific legislation by categorizing such mistakes/ errors is a hard task. The need is met by the enactment of this triangle of sections by empowering the Court with inherent or general powers In brief the scope of these three sections can be stated as follows.

Section -151 :-The Court enjoys inherent powers by virtue of this section which is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of Court.

Section -152 :-This section enables to correct clerical and arithmetical mistakes in judgments,decrees and orders if such mistakes or errors have occurred due to accidental slip or omission.

Section - 153 :-The Court enjoys general power to amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit at any time with a view to determine real question or issue.

Section - 153: Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed: Where an appellate Court dismisses an appeal under Rule 11 of Order XLI, the power of the court to amend, under Section 152, the decree or order appealed against may be exercised by the Court which has passed the decree or order int he first instance notwithstanding that the dismissal of the appeal has the effect of confirming the decree or order, as the case may be, passed by the Court of first instance.

6. In the present case the petitioner has challenged the correction of Gat number of the suit land in the plaint and consequential error which has appeared in the judgment and decree passed in the suit . The order of the learned Civil Judge, S.D.is challenged on the ground of the maintainability of the application made by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 or 152,of the Code. While looking into this aspect one has to find out whether the plaintiff had any other remedy available under the Code. For correction in the description of the suit property in the plaint amendment is permissible under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. When the Court is in the seisin of the suit then the application under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code can be made and entertained by the Court .When the suit is decided then the amendment cannot be carried out in the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. Under review any decree or order or any decision of the Court can be reviewed by the same Court and so the plaint cannot be corrected by moving such application of review. Similarly the plaint cannot be amended by invoking powers of the High Court under revision to amend the plaint. Thus,in the absence of any other remedy the plaintiff has no option but to take recourse of Sections 151 or 152 or 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent plaintiff has made an application under Section 151 or 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the correction of this error and the learned Civil Judge,S.D.has allowed the application to amend the plaint in exercise of powers conferred under the said Sections. At this stage, it is material to state that , the relief cannot be refused on a technical defect i.e.the correct section is not quoted . If the power exists under the Code, then one can conveniently refer to that power to sustain the order passed by the Trial Court.

7. The power to amend any defect or any error in a proceeding or a suit at any time with a view to determine the real question or issue is to be found under Section 151 of the Code. Section 153 refers to the phraseology 'any proceeding in a suit'. The construction of the said phrase can be given a narrow or wide import depending upon the nature and scope of an enactment in which it is used and in the particular context of the language in which it appears. Let me turn to some of the Leading Judgments to ascertain the judicial trend in this behalf.

8. In the case of Aziz Ullah Khan and Ors. v. Collector of Shahjahnpur 1972 ILR (LIV) 800, Allahabad High Court held as under :

The language of Section 152 of the civil Procedure Code is wide enough to cover the correction of mistakes made by the parties themselves as well as mistakes made by the court or by its ministerial officers. Further, the section is not restricted to mistakes which had an origin not anterior to the filing of the suit.

Although Section 152 can only apply in terms to the amendment of decrees and not to the amendment of the plaint, sale certificate and dakhalnama, the power of the Court to make corrections is not confined to Section 152. Extensive powers may be exercised also under Sections 151 and 153. The present case was eminently a case in which the court should exercise its inherent power and correct the accidental slip, as the correction was necessary for the ends of justice.

Under Section 95 of the Evidence Act the Judge had jurisdiction to call evidence for the purpose of showing that the mortgage deed did, in fact, relate to the property in Nawadiya Zamania Nagla.

9. In the case of Somireddi Burayya and Ors. v. Somireddi Atchayyamma : AIR 1959 A.P. 26, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view and has observed as under:

The implication of Order 6 Rule 17 is that so long as the Court is in seisin of the proceedings,it is competent for it to allow amendment of the pleadings. In a partition suit the proceedings must be deemed to be pending in the Court till the suit reaches the stage of final decree and therefore it is competent for the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings. That apart the language of S.153 is in wide terms and confers powers on a Court to correct errors in any proceeding at any stage in order to determine the real question. These two provisions are meant to enable the Court to decide the points in issue and to render justice to the parties.

10. In N. Subramonia Iyer v. Joseph George and Anr. AIR 1959 386 it is observed that

The question how far a court can under Section 152 amend clerical errors in a decree although the error may have first occurred in the parties pleadings and may have been merely copied from them in the decree has been the subject of some diversity of judicial opinion. The language of the section does not exclude such mistake and there would appear to be no reason for restricting the scope of the section as some courts have held,to correction of errors made by the court itself. Indeed mistakes having their origin anterior to the suit and repeated in the decree have themselves been corrected by exercise of jurisdiction under this section.

11. In Narkulla Venkayya and Anr. v. Noona Satyanarayana and Anr. : AIR,1959 A.P. 360 it is observed that

In appropriate cases where mistakes have arisen by reason of inadvertence in entering wrong survey number in the plaint,the Court has ample powers under Section 152 to correct such mistakes which have crept into the judgment and decree .But this power can be exercised by the Court passing the decree. If the trial court's decree has been superseded by the appellate Court's decree or has merged into the same,it is only the appellate court and not the trial court which can rectify the mistake

12. This Court in Krishnaya Parbhaya v. Meghraj Paparam : AIR 1940 Bombay 10 held that where the description of the property is incorrect in the decree itself, the executing court cannot rectify it. It is only the court which passed the decree that can correct the mistake in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151. If it corrects the mistake and amends the decree, the amended decree is appelable; but if it refuses to do so, the order of refusal is not a decree and no appeal lies against it.

13. In the case of Hemanta Kumar Ghose and Ors. v. Rajendra Mondal and Ors. : AIR 1935 Calcutta 619, though the Court took view that executing Court cannot go beyond the decree but where the executing Court and the Court which passed the decree are one and the same, the Court can amend the decree in the course of the execution. But where the decree of the first court is confirmed or reversed, it is superseded by the decree of the appellate Court and the only Court that can amend the decree thereafter is the appellate Court.

14. The aforesaid judgments of this Court as well as other High Court would clearly go to show that there was no judicial consensus as to the powers of the Court to amend the decree which led to the inseration of Section 153A in the Code. By Act No. 104 of 1976 Section 153 was inserted in the code w.e.f. 1st February, 1977, the context of which has already been referred hereinabove. If one peeps into the legislative history leading to the enactment of Section 153 of the Code, then one has to turn Section 152 and 153 of the Code, which authorise the correction of mistakes in judgments, decrees, etc. There was, however, a doubt as to which Court would be competent to amend a decree or order where an appeal against the decree or order has been summarily dismissed. The Bombay and Patna High Courts : AIR 1953 Bom.122 and : AIR 1932, Patna 238 have taken the view that it is the original Court which has the power to amend the decree or order. The High Courts of Allahabad and Andhra have taken the contrary view. : AIR 1965 All 226 and AIR 1958 A.P.768. In view of the divergence of judicial opinion, new Section 153 has been inserted empowering the Court which had passed the decree or order appealed against, to amend the decree or order where the appeal has been summarily dismissed. The power to amend judgment and decree was not in doubt. What was doubted was the power of the Court to make correction of mistakes in judgment and decree. One judicial view was that any decree or order can only be amended if there is power of exercise, and another view was running contrary to the said view. The underline object of inserting Section 153 is pregnant with the legislative recognition with Section 152 and 153 which provides for correction of mistakes in judgments, decrees etc. In this view of the matter, in order to clarify the legal position, Section 153came to be inserted in the code. If this be so, with the insertion of Section 153 in the Code, the legislative intend with regard to sweep of Section 152-153 which was implicit has become explicit. In view of the legislative intend leading to insertion of Section 153 one can legitimately infer authority to correct mistakes in the judgment and decree in exercise of power under Section 152 and 153 of the Code.

15. This Court, recently had an occasion to consider the sweep of Section 152 and 153 of the Code in the case of Shri. Narhari Balku Kavade (Deceased) and Ors. v. Hanamanta Timma Pujari (Deceased) and Ors. 2004(4) ALL M R 356 wherein it is observed that:

In such a case though Section 152 of the Code cannot be invoked to amend the plaint, the power of the court to make corrections for correcting errors arising due to accidental slip, which are necessary for the ends of justice is not confined only to the power exercisable Under Section 152 but extensive powers can be exercised even Under Section 151 and 153 of the Code. The correction is required to be made with a view to give true meaning to the decree for possession. Merely because the petitioners have purported to apply only Under Section 152 of the Code, relief cannot be denied to the petitioners.

16. As already stated, Section 153 refers to the phraseology 'any proceeding in a suit'. Now, the question is what do you mean by 'any proceeding in a suit'? The word 'any' means all except such a wide construction is limited by the subject matter and the context of the statute. 'Any' is a word which excludes limitation or qualification. The expression 'any' includes everything.

The word 'proceeding' can be given a narrow or vide import depending upon the nature and the scope of an enactment in which it is used and in the particular context of the language of the enactment in which it appears. The word 'proceeding' in Section 13 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1947 is given wide meaning to cover an execution proceeding by the Orissa High Court in the case of Raja Bahadur of Khallikote v. Lingaraj Padhi and Anr. : AIR 1951 Orissa 15. The word 'proceeding' is defined in a Shorter Oxford Dictionary as 'doing a legal action or process, any act done by authority of a Court of law'. The term'proceeding' is a very comprehensive term generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal sight and hence it is necessarily embraces the requisite steps by which a judicial action is involved. It means any application to a Court of justice however, made for aid in the enforcement of rights, for reliefs, for redress of injuries, for damages, or any remedial objection. The conscise Oxford Dictionary gives meaning of the word 'proceeding' as used in legal sense as 'steps taken in legal action'.

17. The expression 'proceeding' was also a subject matter of judicial interpretation by the apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Aggarwal and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. : AIR 1966 SC 1888, wherein, the apex Court observed that the expression 'proceeding' used in Section 24(1)(b) of the Code is not a term of art which had acquired definite meaning. While interpreting the said expression used in Section 24(1)(b) of the Code, the apex Court ruled that the term proceeding includes something in which business is conducted according to a prescribed mode it would be only right to give it, and a comprehensive meaning was given so as to include within it all matter coming for judicial adjudication and not to confine it to a civil proceeding alone. The proviso to Section 22(2) provides for amendment of the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief 'at any stage of the proceeding' was also subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the case of Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Ors. : AIR 1982 SC 818, wherein the Apex Court has observed that,

The word 'proceeding' has not been defined in the Act. That term is a very comprehensive term and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. It is not a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it, but one the ambit of whose meaning will be govered by the statute. It indicates a prescribed mode in which judicial business is conducted. The word 'proceeding in Section 22 includes execution proceeding also. The execution is a stage in a legal proceeding. It is a stage in the judicial process. The Legislature has given ample power to Court in such litigation including the execution proceeding.

18. Having understood the meaning of the term 'proceeding' let us now turn to examine the meaning of word 'suit' to understand its meaning in the legal parlance . The word 'suit' has not been defined in the Code, but there cannot be a little doubt that, in the context, the plain and grammatical meaning of the word would include the whole suit and not part of the suit, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Gulab Bai v. Manphulbai : AIR 1962 SC 214. The word 'suit' is a term of art and ordinarily means a proceeding instituted in a civil Court by presentation of a plaint. Ordinarily and apart from the context, 'suit' means civil proceeding instituted by presentation of plaint i.e. legal proceeding. Suit is a proceeding which commences with a petition in the nature of a plaint and claim should be tried by a Court as held by Apex Court in the case of Maharana Bhagwat Singh Bahadur of Udaipur v. State of Rajasthan : AIR 1964 SC 444.

19. Having understood the meaning of three words 'any; proceeding; and suit;' in isolation; bereft of each other, now, let me find out the meaning of all the words put together constituting phrase 'in any proceeding in a suit' occuring in Section 153 of the Code, which is a part of procedural law. While considering its meaning one has to bear in mind that Section 153 of the Code is a part of procedural Law.

The full bench of this Court in the case of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia and Ors. v. Subodh Mody and Ors. 2008(6) Bom.C.R.519 had occasion to consider the question as to the role of procedural law, wherein, the bench observed as under:

53. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the C.P.C. or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

56. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice as held by the Apex Court in the recent judgment in the case of R.N. Jadi and Subhashchandra Brothers v. Subhashchandra : AIR 2007 SC 2571

20. Keeping the aforesaid principles of interpretation and the importance of procedural law in mind, one has to give wide meaning to the phrase ' in any proceeding '' so as to advance the cause of justice. All proceedings in the Court of Civil jurisdiction would fall within the scope of this phrase so as to lien in favour of Court having power under Section 151, 152 and 153 in favour of the Civil Court to correct errors in the proceeding so as to amend judgment and decree in order to justice between the parties. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be sustained on the touchstone of Section 152 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code.

21. The another contention raised by the petitioner was that if the amendment sought pertains to the description of the suit property then it goes to the merits of the case and not within the ambit of Section 152/153.The correction of the error or mistake in the plaint depends on the nature of the mistake or error as per the facts of each case . How the property is described in the plaint and what type of evidence is tendered and the knowledge of the defendant about the suit land, etc. are the relevant factors. While deciding the applicability and inapplicability of Section 153 of the Code to correct the description of the suit property in the plaint certain parameters can be set.

A] Identity of the suit property

Survey number, City Survey Number or gat number of the land and its area are always mentioned to point out the suit land. In every plaint it is necessary for the plaintiff to give true and correct description of the immovable property to enable the parties in the suit and the Judge to identify the property. It is expected from the plaintiff to specify the boundaries of the suit land to avoid any confusion about its location. Thus , if the number of the suit land is wrongly mentioned then the property can be identified with the help of other available facts i.e.the description of the boundaries. There are different ways and means to reveal the identity of a particular fact. Court has to find out whether by correction in the plaint property is going to be substituted or not ?B] Knowledge of the defendant about the identity of the immovable property.

The defendant while contesting the suit files written statement , participates in framing of issues ,takes cross examination, argues the matter and during all these stages he challenges the claim of the plaintiff about the suit property. From the defence the Court has to gather the knowledge of the defendant whether he has despite of correct description has challenged the claim of the plaintiff about correct suit property or the defendant was really misled or had misconception of facts of the suit property due to wrong number. If the defendant has genuinely believed a particular property other than the suit property as 'the suit property' then definitely the Judge has to hold that the defence is vitiated and allowing any correction of the survey number,gat number of the suit property in the plaint will be prejudicial to the defendant. Under such circumstances the application, if made under Section 151 or 153 of the Code cannot be allowed. The Court has to take into account all the other available circumstances which are present in the proceedings while ascertaining the knowledge of the defendant about the identity of the suit property.C] Intention and Bonafides of the plaintiff The learned Judge has to assess from such application and also from the proceedings whether the plaintiff had intentionally suppressed the fact or deliberately misled the defendant or the Court to snatch the orders. The mistake or error in the plaint should be necessarily bonafide and unintentional. Sheer negligence, oversight, illiteracy may be the reasons of such error or it may be silly mistake . However,it should be transparent and honest. These criteria are to be kept in mind to eliminate the possibility of substitution of the land and if the application made under Section 153 of the Code passes all these tests then it is to be allowed to facilitate Ex-defito-justitia i.e.to meet real and substantial justice.

22. In the present suit the plaintiff has made prayer that his name was to be entered into the revenue record in respect of the suit land and he could not produce deed of conveyance as he had lost it. The plaintiff in his evidence also deposed a wrong gat number as 1938 instead of 1238. The learned Civil Judge, S.D. has properly dealt with and evaluated all these aspects. He has considered that the petitioner/ defendant has filed a suit earlier in respect of the suit land against the respondent/plaintiff . The boundaries of the suit land and area are described to fix the location of the suit land and consequently the correct Gat number , old survey number is correctly mentioned. Considering the figures appearing in the correct and incorrect survey number, error appears to be possible. Out of four figures three figures are same hence it is clearly an arithmetical error and correction does not affect the merit of the case. The plaintiff could rightly establish the identity of the suit property. It is merely a mistake in the survey number of the land and it is not a substitution of the land.

23. If this amendment is not allowed then the plaintiff will be without remedy though he has right over the suit property.It will be against the principles of ubi jus ibi remedium.

The impugned order warrants no interference. In the result, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.