IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19076 of 2011 Seya Ram Singh & Anr Versus Malti Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 03. 21.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Farukh Ahmad Khan appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned senior counsel Mr. S. S. Dvivedi appearing on behalf of the respondents. This writ application is heard treating it as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order dated 12.8.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge – IIIrd Nawada (Additional Musif-III, Nawada) in Title Suit No. 760 of 1989. The application filed by the respondents under Section 152 C.P.C. was allowed. It appears that the Title Suit No. 260 of 1989 was filed by the plaintiffs respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of this suit an application for amendment was filed and the prayer for recovery of possession has been made which was allowed on 22.8.2000. However, in the decree the said amended portion of the reliefs was not incorporated. Therefore, the application under Section 152 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents. The learned court below finding the same to be the clerical mistake directed to correct the decree. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier the court below has allowed the application and the present petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 18069 of 2010 and the High Court remanded the matter giving some direction to the court below but while passing the impugned order the court below did not even notice the direction of the High Court and thereby violated the direction of the High Court and further that there is no evidence regarding possession adduced by the witnesses and, therefore, the said reliefs which was added by amendment in the decree could not have been granted by the court below. On the contrary, the learned senior counsel Mr. Dvivedi appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that according to Order 20 Rule 6 C.P.C. the decree should contain the particulars of the claim also but in the original decree prepared by the court below in the particulars of the claim the amended portion was left. Therefore, the court below has only incorporated the amendment part of the claim and in such view of the matter no interference can be made under the supervisor jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In AIR 2006 SC 649 U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Imtiaz Hussain while examining the scope of Section 152 C.P.C. the Apex Court in paragraph 7 has held as 3 follows : “7. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very Court or the tribunal cannot, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefore and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all commissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to 4 the terms of its original judgment, decree or order.” In the present case admittedly, by the impugned order only the relief which was added subsequently by amendment has been incorporated in the decree which was earlier left because of the clerical mistake. From perusal of the judgment annexed with this application it appears that ultimately the plaintiffs’ suit was decree and it is directed that the plaintiffs’ suit is decreed on contest. Therefore, this direction given in the judgment implies that the plaintiffs’ claim was decreed in its entirety. However, in the decree because of the fact that the claim made by the plaintiffs by amendment was not incorporated the court below in exercise of power under section 152 C.P.C. only incorporated the same by the impugned order. In my opinion, therefore, the learned court below has neither discussed the merits of the case nor has alter the finding recorder in the judgment nor has corrected the decree which was intentionally left and, therefore it is within the jurisdiction of the court below. So for the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the direction of this court was not complied with is concerned, it appears that this court only remanded the matter for a fresh decision considering all the facts and circumstances of the case because earlier the fact regarding incorporation of the 5 relief portion by amendment was not mentioned in the order. In view of the above discussion, I find no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)