1 Prash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3461 OF 1997 1. Shri Bhimrao Baburao Matkar, ) deceased through his legal heirs :- ) 1A) Smt. Sushila Bhimrao Matkar, ) Age 50 years. ) 1B) Shri Vijay Bhimrao Matkar, ) age 35 years. ) 1C) Shri Pravin Bhimrao Matkar, ) age 25 years, ) All are residing at 42, Budhwar Peth, ) Satara, Dist : Satara. ) 2. Arjun Baburao Matkar, ) Age 46 years. ) 3. Vinayak Baburao Matkar, ) Age 41 years. ) 4. Murlidhar Baburao Matkar, Age 38 years, ) 5. Anant Baburao Matkar, Aged 31, ) 6. Smt. Laxmibai Baburao Matkar, ) Aged 63 years, ) 7. Ganpat Namdeo Salunkhe, Aged 53. ) being a natural guardian and father of ) Nos. 8 to 10. ) 8. Kum. Sharmila Ganpat Salunkhe, ) Aged 18 years. ) 9. Kum. Chanda Ganpat Salunkhe, ) Aged 16 years. ) 10. Kumar Jalindhar Ganpat Salunkhe, ) 2 Aged 14 years. ) 11. Sau. Saroj Tukaram Patane, Aged 31, ) Occ. Household-maid servant. ) R/at Gulunmb, Tal. Wai. ) 12. Kum. Mangal Baburao Matkar, aged 36. ) Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 and 12, residing at ) 42, Budhwar Peth, Satara. ) Nos. 7 to 10 Nagathane, Dist. Satara. ) 13. Ganpati Sawala Matkar, aged 71, ) since deceased through his heirs :- ) 13A) Sudhir Ganpat Matkar, Age 51 years, ) 13B) Vivek Ganpat Matkar, Age 49 years, ) Both residing at 2051, Raviwar Peth, Wai. ) Dist. Satara. ) 13C) Asha Prataprao Dude, Age 54 years, ) R/at Virat nagar, Wai- Dist. Satara. ) 13D) Nalini Sadashiv Goe, Aged 52 years, ) R/at C.D.B.B. Colony, Tal. Chilun, ) Dist. Ratnagiri. ) 13E) Kanchan Vilasrao Mane, Age 46 years. ) Room No.117, Shastri Nagar, ) Pratiksha Nagar, Sion-Koliwada, ) Mumbai – 400 022. ) 13F) Jayashri Panditrao Mahamulkar, ) Aged 42, R/o. At Karmvir Bhaurao Patil ) Housing Society, Plot No.15, Gadoli, ) Satara, Dist : Satara. ).. Petitioners Versus 1. Sitaram Shankar Matkar (deceased) ) through his legal heirs & representatives:- ) 1A) Laxmibai Sitaram Matkar, Aged 50 years, ) 1B) Ashok Sitaram Matkar, aGed 28. ) Both residing at 318/6A, Vassappa Peth, ) Satara, at Post Tal. & Dist. Satara. ) 3 1C) Smt. Manisha Sandeep Phalke, Age 30 ) residing at Satara Sainik School, ) Quarter (Sadar Bazar) Satara, ) Dist.: Satara. ) 1D) Smt. Rekha Ganesh Gole, Aged 25, ) residing at C/o G.G. Master Tailor, ) (Visawa Park ) Pirwadi, Near Jakat Naka at ) Satara, Tal & Dist: Satara. ) 2. Pandurang Shankar Matkar, Aged 44, ) 3. Waman Shankar Matkar, Aged 41, ) Occ : Advocate, Nos.1 to 3, r/at 318, ) Bassappa Peth, Satara. ) 4. Sau. Matubai Jaising Mane, Aged 63 ) Since deceased through her legal heirs and ) Representatives, ) 4A Hanuman Jaysing Mane, Aged 64, ) 414, Swayambhu hanuman Rahiwashi Sangh, ) B-186, Kannamwar – 2, Vikhroli (E), ) 4B Sopan JaisingMane, Aged 58 ) At post nandgiri, Tal. Koregaon, ) Dist. Satara. ) 4C Dilip Jaising Mane, Aged 55, ) At Post N-G-L, 30/3, Cidco Aurangabad. ) 4D Kailas Jaising Mane, Aged 53. ) At Post Nandgiri, Tal. Koregaon, ) Dist. Satara. ) 4E. Ashok Jaising Mane, Aged 51. ) At Post N-G-L, 30/3, Cidco Aurangabad. ) 4F. Balkrishna Jaising Mane, aged 49. ) At Post N-G-L, 30/3, Cidco Aurangabad. ) 4G. Mahadeo Jaising Mane, Aged 68 ) Krishnakripa Bldg. No.7, Room No.7, ) Sahyadri Nagar, Kandivli (W), ) Mumbai – 67. ).. Respondents -- 4 Shri S.P. Thorat for the Petitioners. Shri Dilip Bodake for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1D, 2 and 3. Shri D.D. Nanaware for Respondent Nos. 4A to 4G. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard yesterday. The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs who have taken an exception to the order dated 9th April, 1997 passed by the learned Trial Judge. An application made by the Petitioners under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Code” ) has been rejected by the Trial Court. The Petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The partition was sought in respect of the property mentioned in Schedules A and B to the Plaint. Item No.10 of the Schedule-A is the property bearing R.S. No.318/10. The suit was contested and was decreed on 8th April, 1987. An application was made under Section under Section 152 of the said Code on 21st April, 1994. A prayer in the said application was that the R.S. No.318/10 incorporated in the Schedule-A should be replaced by the R.S. No.318/6. A prayer was made for permitting an amendment accordingly in Schedule A to the Plaint. Further prayer was made for correcting the decree accordingly. 2. The application was opposed by the Respondents by filing a 5 reply. While rejecting the application, the learned Trial Judge held that the application was not tenable under Section 152 of the said Code inasmuch as the decree passed in the suit was confirmed upto the Apex court. The learned Trial Judge relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Pratap Kaur (Smt.) (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr., [(1995)3 SCC 263 ]. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners invited my attention to the Schedule-A to the Plaint. He pointed out that the R.S.No. 318/10 is the last property as Item No.10 in the said schedule and the sentence below Item No.10 clearly refers to R.S. No.318/6. He submitted that the sentence which follows Item No.10 in Schedule-A clearly shows that while incorporating Survey number, there was an accidental error crept in. He submitted that along with the Plaint, 7/12 extracts were filed in respect of all the properties mentioned in the Schedule-A including the R.S. No.318/6. He has tendered on record additional compilation containing several documents. He invited my attention to the earlier suit being Suit No.18 of 1969 filed by the father of Respondent Nos.1 to 6. He pointed out that the present Petitioners were the Defendants in the said suit. He pointed out that R.S.No.318/6 was included in the said earlier suit. He also invited my attention to the final order passed by the Revenue Authority of effecting partition in terms of the decree passed in the said earlier suit which also refer to R.S.No.318/6. He submitted that the R.S.No.318/10 is not the property of joint family and the joint family has 6 nothing to do with the said property. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Narhari Balku Kavade since deceased through his heirs & Ors. V. Hanmanta Timma Pujari since deceased through his and legal representatives & Ors., [ 2004(6) Bom.C.R. 414 ]. He also invited my attention to the another decision in the case of Aslambeg s/o Rahimbeg Mirza v. Ganpatrao s/o Jagannathdas Hedaoo, [ (2008(3) Mh.L.J. 315 ]. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. & Ors., [ AIR 2008 SC 225 ]. He invited the attention of the Court to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Pratap Kaur (supra). He also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi (D) By L.Rs. [ 2009(4) Bom.C.R. 570. He submitted that the clear accidental error ought to have been allowed to be corrected. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents invited my attention to the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1969 to which the predecessor of the Petitioners were parties and the predecessor of some of the Respondents were parties. He submitted that the documents forming part of the compilation produced by the Petitioners show that the said R.S.No.318/6 was partitioned and it was bifurcated into R.S. No. 318/6A and 318/6B. He submitted that on the date of institution of the suit, the R.S. No.318/6 was not in existence. He placed reliance on 7/12 extracts and his affidavit-in-reply showing that the Revisions Survey No. 318/6A stands in the name of Shankar Savala Matkar and R.S.No.318/6B 7 stands in the name of some of the Respondents. He submitted that at this stage, if the alleged mistake was allowed to be corrected, the Respondents will suffer prejudice. He pointed out that in the execution application, the Petitioners filed a certified copy of the decree in which the correction was already carried out to Item No.10 of Schedule-A and, therefore, an order has been passed by the Trial Court on 13th August, 2009 directing the Assistant Superintendent to file a complaint against the Petitioners for fabricating the false documents and for forgery of Court records with an intention of using the same. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh [2004(2) Mh.L.J. 565 ]. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. Insofar as the legal position is concerned, there could be hardly any dispute. If it is found that there is purely an accidental and inadvertent error in the material part of the Plaint, the Court has sufficient powers under Section 153 of the said Code to correct the errors even after decision of the suit. The corresponding accidental error crept in in the decree can be always corrected under Section 152 of the said Code. Confirmation of the decree by the higher Court does not divest the Court of the first instance of its powers under Sections 152 and 153 of the said Code. In the present case, even if the application is styled as under Section 152 of the said Code, nothing prevents the Trial Court from exercising the powers even under Section 153 of the said Code as there was a prayer made for an amendment 8 of the Plaint in the application made by the Petitioner. 6. Now the question is whether the power could have been exercised by the Trial Court in the present case. Even if the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is accepted that instead of incorporating Hissa No.6 of R.S. No.318, Hissa No.10 of R.S. No.318 was incorporated due to accidental error, the question is whether the power can be exercised considering the facts of the case. It appears that the suit was filed by the Petitioners on 18th September, 1976. The Petitioners have placed on record a preliminary decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1969 filed by one Babu who was the predecessor of Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 herein. Some of the present Petitioners were party Defendants to the said suit. The preliminary decree was passed in the said suit declaring the shares of the parties. R.S. No.318/6 was a part of the suit property in the said suit. In accordance with Section 54 of the said Code, the papers were sent to the Collector for effecting partition. An order of Tahsildar effecting partition as well as possession receipts have been placed on record in the compilation produced in this Court. It must be stated here that according to the case of the Petitioners, the area of R.S. No.318/10 is 1 acre and 7 gunthas. A description of the property incorporated in the Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1969 also describes the area of Survey No. 318/6 as 1 acre and 7 gunthas. The possession receipt executed before the Tahsildar in the partition proceedings arising out of the decree passed in the year 1969 shows that the Survey No.318/6B admeasuring 30 ares was 9 allotted to the share of Shankar Savala Matkar and Ganpati Savala Matkar & Others. As pointed out earlier, the said Ganpati Savala Matkar is one of the Plaintiffs in the present suit and the Petitioner in this Petition. Thus, the said document indicates that the Survey No.318/6 was partitioned. As pointed out earlier, in the present suit, the decree has attained finality in the sense that the same has been confirmed by the Apex Court. If, at this stage, amendment of the Plaint and the decree is permitted for incorporating Survey No.318/6 in place of the R.S. No.318/10, the Respondents will be prevented from taking a defence based on the decree passed in the Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1969 on the basis of which, the partition was already effected of Survey No.318/6 as indicated by the documents produced by the Petitioners themselves. It is obvious that a defence is available to the Respondents that the R.S. No.318/6 was already subjected to partition even prior to the decision in the present suit as the possession receipt executed before the Tahsildar is of June, 1977. The latest 7/12 extracts have been annexed to the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents show that the area of 19 Ares out of Survey No.318/6A is standing in the name of Shankar Savala Matkar and the area of 30 Ares out of R.S. No.318/6B is standing in the name of some of the Respondents. Thus, the documents produced by the Petitioners forming part of the additional compilation itself show that the R.S. No.318/6 was subjected to partition in the earlier suit. Therefore, if the plaint is permitted to be amended at this stage, serious prejudice will be caused to the Respondents inasmuch as in terms of the decree passed in the present suit filed by the 10 Petitioners, the R.S. No.318/6 admeasuring 1 acre and 7 gunthas will be again subjected to partition. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned order by which the application under Section 152 of the said Code has been rejected. The Petition is dismissed. The rule is discharged with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)