In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2828 of 2007 Date of decision: May 30, 2009 Bedo @ Viodo .. Petitioner Vs. Darshan and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the respondent No.4. A.N. Jindal, J An application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 CPC for correction in the plaint as well as in the decree filed by the petitioner- plaintiff was declined by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Phillaur, on 7.4.2007. The petitioners have sought correction on the ground that they had sought inheritance of Inder Singh on the basis of natural succession. Inder Singh died while leaving behind seven heirs, out of which the petitioners, four in number, were the plaintiffs, whereas, the remaining three heirs were the defendants. To the contrary, the defendant had set up a Will which was not approved by the trial court. The judgment and decree dated 23.12.1983 had attained finality. It was averred that due to inadvertence the plaintiffs mentioned their shares as 3/7, whereas, they are actually owners to the extent of 4/7 shares by way of natural succession. A lot of discussion has been made by the trial court while dismissing the application, whereas, the court at the time of making such arithmetic corrections and inadvertence mistakes at the time of recording pleadings should not go by technicalities and provide substantial justice to the parties. There is no denying a fact that if the succession devolves upon the plaintiffs and the defendants, then they being seven in numbers in each get 1/7 share and as such, the plaintiffs would be owners of 4/7 shares. Even if the correction is not made, the defendants are not to be benefitted with the same. Since the suit was decreed on the basis of the natural succession, therefore, the plaintiffs were to get 4/7 shares. As such, the Civil Revision No. 2828 of 2007 -2- *** mistake committed in the pleadings cannot be shouldered upon the plaintiffs, but the same occurred on account of the fault of the counsel for which the petitioner should not suffer. The inadvertence errors in the plaint as well as in the decree could be corrected by the High Court while exercising powers under Sections 151/152 of CPC. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in case L.Janakirama Iyer and others vs. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer and others, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 633, wherein it was observed as under :- “Where the decretal order drawn in the High Court as a result of inadvertence and through error introduced the words “mesne profits” instead of the words “net profits”, the error can be corrected by the High Court under Ss.151 and 152 even though the appeals from the decree may have been admitted in the Supreme Court before the date of correction.” Similarly, the Apex Court in case S. Satnam Singh and others vs. Surender Kaur and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 600, observed as under :- “21. The court may not have a suo motu power to amend a decree but the same would not mean that the court cannot rectify a mistake. If a property was the subject matter of pleadings and the court did not frame an issue which it ought to have done, it can, at a later stage, when pointed out, may amend the decree.” In these circumstances, this petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to make necessary corrections by substituting the words “3/7 share” to “4/7 share” in the title, prayer as well as in the judgment and decree dated 23.12. 1983. May 30, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge