IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4078 of 2008 Between: Aruru Kanakamma & another … Petitioners And: Lodari Kanthamma & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4078 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2008 in IA No.731 of 2004 in OS No.29 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, wherein, the said application filed by the petitioners herein-plaintiffs under Sections 151 and 152 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit for partition and the same was decreed and an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to effect partition. At the time of the execution of the warrant, the Commissioner found that there was wrong description of the properties and therefore, could not execute the warrant. The petitioners thereafter filed IA No.731 of 2004 seeking permission to amend the plaint schedule by substituting the same with a fresh schedule. 4. The respondents filed counter, opposing the said application, inter-alia, contending that sections 151 and 152 CPC have no application. Learned Senior Civil Judge, by impugned order dismissed the application as not maintainable. 5. According to the petitioners, while filing the suit, they furnished the plaint schedule based on information given by the Village Officer and now when the Commissioner sought to execute the warrant for effecting division as per the preliminary decree, it was found that the boundaries and survey numbers of the schedule properties are not tallying and hence, they filed petition seeking amendment of the schedule by way of substitution. According to the respondents by way of proposed amendment, the petitioners are seeking wholesale substitution of the decree with a new schedule, which is not permissible under Section 152 CPC. According to them, the proposed amendment would adversely affect the interest of certain third parties, whose properties are also sought to be included. 6. It is to be noted that the defendants filed a written statement, inter-alia, contending that the plaint schedule is incorrect and some of the items mentioned therein are non- existent, in spite of the same, the plaintiffs have not chosen to take any steps during the pendency of the suit to ascertain correctness or otherwise of the particulars mentioned in the plaint schedule and seek amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC at that stage. On the other hand, plaintiffs went for trial ignoring the contentions raised in the written statement with regard to the correctness of the plaint schedule. Now after the suit is decreed and when the Commissioner found that the items as mentioned in the plaint schedule are either non-existent or not tallying with the ground realities, the plaintiffs have filed the present application under Section 152 CPC, as if there is a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the schedule attached to the decree. 7. It is not a case of clerical or arithmetical mistake that has occurred in the schedule attached to the decree due to typographical or other error. The proposed amendment involves total substitution of the existing decree schedule with a new schedule altogether without there being any corresponding amendment to the plaint schedule. Some of the items of the properties mentioned in the existing schedule are sought to be deleted and some other items are sought to be newly added in the proposed amendment. 8. It is well settled that the scope of amendment under Section 152 CPC is very limited. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, can be corrected under Section 152 CPC. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely on a decision in ‘S.Burrayya vs. S. Atchayyamma[1]’, wherein, the Division Bench of this court held that in a partition suit the proceedings must be deemed to be pending in the court till the suit reaches the stage of final decree and therefore, it is competent for the court to allow amendment of the pleadings. That apart, the language of section 153 is in wide terms and confers powers on a court to correct errors in any proceeding at any stage in order to determine the real question. These two provisions are meant to enable the court to decide the points in issue and to render justice to the parties. Whether an amendment is to be allowed in a particular case or not, is to be decided by court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. These two provisions of law therefore invest the court with jurisdiction to allow an amendment even after the preliminary decree is passed. 10. In the above case, a preliminary decree was passed in a suit for partition and when the Commissioner went to the spot for effecting division of the properties, obstruction was caused in respect of one of the items and thereafter, plaintiff filed a petition for substituting another item for the disputed item in Sy.No.171 alleging that the said item in Sy.No.171 was mentioned by mistake as part of joint family property. It was opposed by the other side on the ground that the said item was ‘stridhana’ of the defendants. The Court while dealing with the provisions under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, Order XX Rule 3 and Section 153 CPC held that the Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment on the ground of mistake even after preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit. It was further held that whether an amendment should be allowed in a particular case or not is to be decided by the Court, having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. It may be that in some cases the rights of third parties would be infringed by allowing such an amendment. These are all matters which have to be considered by the Court at the time of the hearing of an application for amendment. It was also noticed that the learned Subordinate Judge straightaway substituted one item of the property for another without going in to the merits of the objections, namely whether the property sought to be substituted belong to the joint family or it was a stridhana property. The matter was therefore remanded to the trial Court for deciding that question on merits giving opportunity to either party to adduce evidence on the question of the character of the property. 11. In the present case, the application is filed under Section 152 CPC as if there is an arithmetical or clerical mistake in the decree arising from accidental slip or omission. The plaintiff has not sought for amendment of the plaint or plaint schedule under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, nor plaintiff invoked the provision of Section 153 CPC, which confer a general power to amend on the Court. There being admittedly no clerical or arithmetical mistake that has occurred in the decree either by accidental slip or omission, the question of rectifying such mistake or defect by invoking power under Section 152 CPC does not simply arise. 12. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the application under section 152 CPC does not therefore call for any interference. It is however, open to the plaintiffs to avail appropriate other remedies, if any available under law and in the event of the plaintiffs availing the same, the trial Court shall deal with the matter on its own merits, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. 13. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.06.2011 bss [1] AIR 1959 AP 26