IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 95 of 2003. Judgment reserved on : 20.06.2011. Date of decision: 22.06.2011. _______________________________________________________ Sh. Jai Singh & Another. ….. Petitioners. Versus Smt. Sarla Devi. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The order dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Kasauli, in RT No. 62-S/6 of 2000/95 has been assailed in the revision petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed an application under Section 152 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘Code’) for amendment of judgment, decree dated 10.03.1975, titled as ‘Parkash Lal versus Bala Ram’. It has been stated that the suit was for specific performance with respect to Khasra number 397 measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas, mauza Anji, Tehsil and District Solan. The suit was decreed on 10.03.1975. 3. It has been stated that due to clerical mistake Khasra number 379 was mentioned in the judgment, decree instead of 397. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 The husband of the respondent died after the decision of the case. The respondent came to know about the mistake in the decree in the first week of June, 1991 and, therefore, the application was filed for correcting Khasra number 379 in the judgment, decree dated 10.03.1975 and substituting it with Khasra number 397. 4. The application was contested by filing reply. It has been stated that respondent had filed the application just to raise her illegal demand. Kirpa Ram the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the land from Bala Ram and since then land is in possession of the petitioners. The respondent or her husband never raised any objection. The application is not maintainable nor the same is within limitation. 5. The learned Sub Judge on 18.12.2002 allowed the amendment in the judgment, decree by substituting Khasra number 397 instead of 379. This order has been assailed in the revision. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. There is no limitation prescribed for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The Court has power to correct these errors at any time either on its own motion or on the application of any parties. In the present case, the suit was decreed on 10.03.1975 and the amendment under Section 152 was allowed on 18.12.2002. In the reply to the amendment application, it has been stated that Kirpa Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had purchased the land from Bala Ram and since then the land is in possession of the petitioners. The respondent or her husband had never raised any objection. 3 7. In Dwaraka Das versus State of M.P. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 500 the Supreme Court has held that the exercise of power under Section 152, CPC contemplates the correction of mistakes by Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or orders. No Court can, under the cover of the Sections 151, 152 modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. 8. In Jaya Lakshmi Coelho versus Oswald Joseph Coelho (2001) 4 SCC 181 the decree was passed on 07.03.1992 and the husband filed an application on 30.06.1992 that the decree by mutual consent was granted to the parties on 07.03.1992 but the order remained silent on other reliefs which were mentioned in the agreement and in para-8 of the petition. On those facts, the Supreme Court has held that the power of rectification of clerical, arithmetical errors or accidental slip does not empower the Court to have a second thought over the matter and to find that a better order or decree could or should be passed. It is to be confined something initially intended but left out or added against such intention. 9. In Bela Debi versus Bon Behary Roy and Others AIR 1952 Cal. 86, it has been held that there is no time limit for applications under Section 152. It is, however, an equally established fact that no amendment should be allowed if third party has acquired rights, and/or where it would be inequitable or unjust to allow the rectification. In P.S. Narayana Iyer versus Biyari Bivi and Others AIR 1923 Madras 57 it has been held that the exercise of power to amend under Section 152 is discretionary and necessarily so, when no period of limitation is provided for application for its exercise and, therefore no investigation 4 of title can insure those, who acquire rights in property dealt with in a previous decree, against the effect of a subsequent amendment thereof. 10. In J.Abid Hussain v. Mrs. R.K.Paul and antother AIR 1961 A.P. 508, it has been held that a correction could be made under Section 152 of the Code at any time, such a thing is possible only as long as interests of third party do not intervene, secondly any inertia on the part of a person asking for the amendment should be tolerated when the third party acquire interests, though it is necessary that the third party should have acted in good faith without the knowledge of the defective decree. 11. In the present case, the application under Section 152 is completely silent whether the petitioners were aware of the pendency of Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1973 nor there is an averment in the application how and under what circumstances, the petitioners became owners of Khasra number 397. There are no averments in the application when petitioners became owners of Khasra number 397. It is not the case of the respondent that petitioners were parties in Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1973. It emerges from the reply to application under Section 152 that Kirpa Ram, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, had purchased Khasra number 397 from Bala Ram judgment debtor in Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1973. The learned Court below has not considered the manner in which the petitioners have acquired right over Khasra number 397. There are no findings that petitioners were aware of pendency of Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1973 or that the petitioners were aware that land involved in Civil Suit No. 25/1 of 1973 consists of Khasra number 397 and not Khasra number 379. There is no averment 5 in the application that petitioners are not bonafide purchasers of land comprised in Khasra number 397. In these circumstances, the Lower Court has erred in allowing the amendment application at a belated stage under Section 152 by substituting Khasra number 397 with Khasra number 379. The impugned order is not sustainable. 12. In view of above discussion, the revision is allowed. The order dated 18.12.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Kasauli in RT No. 62-S/6 of 2000/95 is set aside and application of respondent under Section 152 read with Section 151 CPC is dismissed. No costs. June 22, 2011. (Kuldip Singh), (krt) Judge.