Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shanthamma @ Channapurad vs Sri Krishnappa on 20 February, 2023
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRP No. 506 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.506 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA @ CHANNAPURAD
CHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
2. SRI. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/O KUREMAGANHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPNAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 583 131.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.B. HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
KARNATAKA S/O THIMMPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O GOLLARAHALLI,
ANAJI POST, DAVANGERE TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
2. SRI. SURESH BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/O SAVANUR TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110.
-2-
CRP No. 506 of 2018
3. SRI. R.V. GOVINDARAJ
S/O SANNA VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O UJJAPPA VADERAHALLI,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
KATAGI KENCHAHANUMAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LRS
4. SIDDESH
S/O LATE KATAGI KENCHAHANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O #68, C-BLOCK, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
5. SRI. D.K. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O D.S. KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O KUREMAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARAPANAHALLI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 SERVED )
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
05TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 PASSED ON IA IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.30
OF 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
HARAPANAHALLI, ALLOWING THE IA FILED UNDER SECTION 152
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRP No. 506 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil
Procedure Code is filed challenging the order dated 05th
September, 2018 passed in Original Suit No.30 of 2011 on the
file Senior Civil Jude and JMFC., Harapanahalli (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the application
filed by the defendant No.2 under Section 152 read with Section
151 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed.
2. Sri. S.B. Halli, learned counsel appearing for petitioners
submits that the application filed by the defendant
No.2/respondent No.1 herein under Section 152 of the Civil
Procedure Code to amend the decree 'B' schedule boundary, is
not maintainable, hence, in the absence of any source of power
to amend the decree, the impugned order passed by the Trial
Court is without jurisdiction. Hence, he submits that in absence
of Arithmetical or Typographical error, the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction.
3. Per contra Sri. R. Shashidhar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1/defendant No.2 submits that
there was a Typographical error in wrongly describing the
CRP No. 506 of 2018
boundary towards South, and the Trial Court taking into
consideration the said Typographical error, has rightly passed
the impugned order, and same does not warrant any
interference in the present writ petition.
4. I have considered the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for both the parties.
5. The suit was filed for declaration and possession, and
same was decreed in-part, declaring that the plaintiffs are the
owners of the suit schedule property excluding the 'B' schedule
property. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 filed an application
seeking amendment in the decree insofar as it relates to
describing the boundary towards South in respect of 'B' Schedule
property. Section 152 of the Civil Procedure specifies that
clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders
or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may
at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or
on the application of any of the parties. In other words, the
Court can only correct the clerical or arithmetical errors in the
decree and cannot permit the amendment of the Decree in the
absence of any power to amend the decree. Hence, the
CRP No. 506 of 2018
impugned order passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction
and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) Civil Revision Petition allowed;
(ii) Order dated 05th September, 2018 passed in
Original Suit No.30 of 2011 on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Harapanahalli is
hereby set-aside. Consequently, application IA
filed under Section 152 read with Section 151 of
the Civil Procedure Code stands dismissed;
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the defendant
No.2/respondent No.1 to take appropriate steps
for amendment of the decree, if permissible
under law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
