1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.171 of 2010 Dharmaraj Kashiram Pardhi & ors. ... Petitioners versus Kacharu Sakharam Pardhi & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Prafulla B. Shah for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 7th July 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 4 September 2009 passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Nashik rejecting the petitioners’ application for amendment of the judgment and decree passed earlier. 3. Petitioners suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale was decreed by the trial court. However, while decreeing the suit, the trial court imposed a condition that the petitioner shall obtain a permission of the Collector for execution of the sale deed. According to the petitioners, permission of the collector for sale is not necessary and therefore, he applied to the trial court under sectins 152 of the 2 Code of Civil Procedure for modification of the judgment and decree so as to delete the said condition. The order rejecting that application is impugned by this petition. 4. Section 152 of the Code provides that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Imposition of a condition of obtaining of a permission in the present case by the judgment of the trial court was not arising out of an arithmetical or clerical mistake but on the basis of an interpretation of a provision of law that such permission was necessary under section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the condition, appropriate remedy for him was to file an appeal against the said order. Jurisdiction u/s.152 of the Code could not be invoked by him for deleting the condition. The trial Judge was therefore right in rejecting the application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner however invites my attention to the observations made in order dated 14 September 2005 made by this court while deciding writ petition no.6093/05. That petition was directed against the order of the Collector rejecting the permission for sale. Therein the Court has observed: “Prima facie, it appears that section 36 does not apply to a situation where both the parties to the transaction are tribal as in the present case. However, admittedly the requirement of permission 3 has been imposed by the civil court, while granting the decree of specific performance. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to take out proceedings in respect of the decree of specific performance obtained by the petitioners, within a period of four weeks. This undertaking is accepted.” 6. The Court has only observed that it was of the prima facie view that section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Court was not applicable but had not made any final adjudication thereon. Secondly, this Court only permitted the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings relating to the said condition. The appropriate proceedings, in the facts of the present case, does not mean an application u/s.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which clearly is inapplicable to the present case. Therefore, observations of this court made in a collateral proceeding does not help his case. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)