IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26882 of 2005(A) -------------------------- LAR.247/2001 of SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PADIKKALVEETTIL GOPALAN NAMBIAR, S/O.CHATHU NAMBIAR, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KUPPAM DESOM, KANNUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), OECF, KANNUR. 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, OECF, KWA, MALAPPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-9. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1: True copy of notice issued to petitioner in L.A.R. No. 254/2001 by the reference court. Ext.P2: True copy of notice issued to the petitioner in L.A.R No. 247/2001 by the reference court. Ext.P3: True copy of the deposition of petitioner before the court below. Ext.P4: True copy of the common judgment dated 21.8.2004 of court below in L.A.R. 247/2001, L.A.R. 251/2001 and connected LAR Ext.P5: True copy of the certified copy of the affidavit and order in I.A. 66/2005 Ext.P6: True copy of the order dated 18.2.2005 in I.A. 66/2005 //True copy// HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26882 of 2005 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January , 2009 ORDER Ext.P6 order is under challenge. The court below held that one plot each of the acquired land was omitted to be included in the decree and judgment in L.A.R. 247/2001 and 254/2001 in the calculation made by the erstwhile subjudge of the court below . But when the omission was pointed out to the present Sub judge, the learned Sub judge he held that the error is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake which can be corrected under Section 152 of the C.P.C. The Omission to include one plot each of the acquired land is a sheer omission made by the predecessor of the present subjudge . if such an omission was caused due to the mistake of the erstwhile sub judge, there is no justification in saying that the omission cannot be corrected in the judgment and decree by the present sub judge. In fact the predecessor of the present sub judge allowed the application for correction under Section 152 of the C.P.C. Going by the facts and circumstances, it is seen that the predecessor of the present Subjudge by some mistake omitted to include one plot each in the decree and judgment in L.A.R. Nos 247/2001 and 254/2001 respectively. There is nothing wrong in correcting the mistake by the court below. Therefore Ext. P6 is set aside and the court below is directed to carry out the correction under Section 152 of the C.P.C. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26882 of 2005 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 8th January, 2009