jpc 1 wp8950-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8950 OF 2010 Dhanaji Ganpati Gaikwad and others ... Petitioners Versus Namdeo Digambar Gaikwad and others ... Respondents Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, for the petitioners CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 8th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. In the above petition, notice came to be issued on 14th March, 2011 indicating that the above Writ Petition would be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. Though respondents have been served, none appears on behalf of the respondents. Hence, in terms of the said notice, the petition is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The order challenged in the above petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is the one dated 30th July, 2010 by which order the application filed by the original plaintiffs for correction of the decree by invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil procedure came to be rejected. The rejection is on the ground that the correction sought would not fall within the ambit of the said provision. jpc 2 wp8950-10.sxw 3. It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary facts. Suffice it to say that the petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 2006 for partition and separate possession of the ancestral lands. One of the lands mentioned was Gat No. 950 amongst other lands mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the plaint. The said Gat No. 950 admeasuring 1 Hectare and 81 Ares was incorporated in the plaint as one of the suit properties on the basis of the 7/12 extract which the petitioners were issued by the Talathi as the land belonging to their family. The parties went on trial. In so far as the said Gat No. was concerned, it appears that no objection was raised on behalf of the defendants also. The suit ultimately came to be decreed by the judgment and order dated 6th November, 2006. The said decree was thereafter put in execution and during the course of the execution proceedings it was realised that Gat No. 950 was erroneously mentioned as one of the suit properties instead of Gat No. 970. The petitioners, on getting the 7/12 extracts of Gat No. 950 as well as of Gat No. 970 and the certificates dated 15th December, 2006 issued by the Gaon Kamgar Talathi, realised that the said Gat No. 950 was wrongly mentioned instead of Gat No. 970 which is their ancestral property. The petitioners, therefore applied for correction of the decree by filing the instant application Exh.1, by having recourse to Section 152 of the Code. The said application, as indicated herein above, came to be rejected on the jpc 3 wp8950-10.sxw ground that the correction sought by the petitioners was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake which would fall within the ambit of Section 152 of the Code as the plaint discloses that it was Gat No. 950 and not 970. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mankapure. The learned counsel, in so far as the powers vested in the Court under Section 152 are concerned, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in the case of Tilak Raj Vs. Baikunthi Devi (D)by L.Rs., reported in 2009 (4) Bom.C. R.570. The facts in the said case was the decree carried wrong property number which was revealed during the course of execution. Property mentioned was Property No. 25R/52 instead of correct property No.26R/52. The Apex Court, in view of the fact that there was no rebuttal evidence in the Suit that it was not property No. 25R.52, came to the conclusion in the said case that the mistake was clerical in nature which could have been corrected on applying of the provisions of Section 152 of the Code. The Apex Court stated that the remedy if any available to the appellant was to apply for the amendment of the decree for correcting the clerical mistake. The learned counsel would contend that the facts of the case before the Apex Court are almost identical to the facts in the instant case. The learned Counsel submitted that the original 7/12 extracts of Gat No. 950 and Gat No. 970 were issued to the plaintiff by the Gaon jpc 4 wp8950-10.sxw Kamgar Talathi on 17th September, 2010 that is just prior to the filing of the application. The said documents unmistakably disclose that it is Gat No. 970 which is of the ownership of the family of the petitioners/plaintiffs and in so far as Gat No. 950 is concerned, it is of the ownership of one Sukdeo Tukaram Gaikwad who has no connection with petitioners' family. 5. In the context of the aforesaid facts and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment supra, in my view, the impugned order dated 30th July, 2010 would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside and the application for correction of the decree for substituting Gat No.950 by Gat No. 970 would resultantly have to be allowed. The Executing Court is directed to amend and correct the decree accordingly. The original 7/12 extracts as tendered by the learned counsel for the petitioners are taken on record and marked ‘X’ and ‘Y’ for identification. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)