[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Venkataramabhat vs Anantha Bhat on 6 February, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
1
2026:KER:9100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
CRP NO. 800 OF 2001
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2001 IN I.A.NO.182/2000 IN
I.A.NO.1478/77 IN OS NO.70 OF 1974 OF SUB COURT, KASARAGOD
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1 AND 3 TO 9/DEFENDANTS 4, 8 TO
14):
1 VENKATRAMANA BHAT, S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT
2 K.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT,S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT
3 K.M.SRIKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
4 K.M.GANAPATHI BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
5 K.M.SAKUNTHALA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
6 BAGYARATHNA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
7 PADMINI, D/O K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
8 REVATHI
D/O..K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
THE 1ST REVISION PETITIONER IS RESIDING AT KAJANALA
HOUSE, KALANJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, POST KALANJI,
D.K. AND REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
MALINJA PANJA, BAYAR VILLAE, POST BAYAR, KASARAGOD
TLAUK.
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2
2026:KER:9100
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SHRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
SMT.UTHARA ASOKAN
RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5, 7, 10 AND 2ND
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 2, 6, 7):
1 ANANTHA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT
2 JAGADEESHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
3 SRIDHARA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
4 PRAKASHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
5 RADHAKRISHNA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
6 MADHAVA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT
7 K.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT
S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT (DIED)
8 ISHWARA BHAT (DIED)
S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT
THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KARPA IN
BANTWAL TALUK, POST SIDDAKATTA, D.K.AND THE
RESPONDENTS 7 & 8 ARE RESIDING AT KAJANALA HOUSE,
SULLIA TALUK, POST MUDUNGARA D.K
ADDL.R9 KALANIDHI
W/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPP. GOVT. WELL, AGRAHARA, CHANTHARU PO,
BRAHMAVARA, VDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R10 JAGADEESHA N.S.
S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPP. GOVT. WELL, AGRAHARA, CHANTHARU PO,
BRAHMAVARA, VDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R11 RAMESH N.S
S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPP. GOVT. WELL, AGRAHARA, CHANTHARU PO,
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
3
2026:KER:9100
BRAHMAVARA, VDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R12 BHARATHI
D/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPP. GOVT. WELL, AGRAHARA, CHANTHARU PO,
BRAHMAVARA, VDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE.
ADDL RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL
RESPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 7TH RESPONDENT VIDE
ORDER DATED 11.01.2010 IN CMP 5268/02 IN CRP 800/01
ADDL.R13 JYOTHI K.
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O.ISHWARA BHAT AND W/O.SRIKRISHNA BHAT K, RESIDING
AT KELAMBOOR HOUSE, P.O.ISHWARAMANGALA 574313, PUTTU
TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R14 NAINA U,
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O.ISHWARA BHAT AND W/O.KRISHNA SHARMA, DALAJI HOSUE,
P.O.TELLAR 576 117, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDITINAL RESPONDENTS R13 & R14 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 8TH RESPONDENT, ISHWARA
BHAT IN THE CRP 800/2001 AS PER ORDER DATED 12.12.2025
IN IA NO.2713/2014 IN CRP 800/2001.
BY ADV SHRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.01.2026, ALONG WITH CRP.801/2001, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
4
2026:KER:9100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
CRP NO. 801 OF 2001
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2001 IN IA NO.183 OF 2000 IN
I.A.NO.1478/1977 IN O.S.NO.70/1974 OF SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONERS(PETITIONERS 1 AND 3 TO 9/DEFENDANTS 4, 8 TO
14):
1 VENKATARAMABHAT,S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT
2 K.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
3 K.M.SRIKRISHNA BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
4 K.M.GANAPATHI BHAT, S/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
5 K.M.SAKUNTHALA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
6 BAGYARATHNA, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
7 PADMINIT, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
8 REVATHI, D/O.K.M.KESHAVA BHAT
THE 1ST REVISION PETITIONER IS RESIDING AT KAJANALA
HOSUE, KALANJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK, POST KALANJI,
D.K. AND REVISION PETITIONERS 2 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
MALINJA PANJA, BAYAR VILLAGE, POST BAYAR, KASARAGOD
TLAUK.
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
5
2026:KER:9100
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SHRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER (SR.)
SMT.UTHARA ASOKAN
RESPONDENTS( RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5, 7, 10 AND 2ND
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 2, 6, 7):
1 ANANTHA BHAT, S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT
2 JAGADEESHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
3 SRIDHARA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
4 PRAKASHA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
5 RADHAKRISHNA, S/O.ANANTHA BHAT
6 MADHAVA BHAT,
S/O.ACHUTHA BHAT
7 K.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT (DIED)
8 ISHWARA BHAT
S/O.GANAPATHI BHAT (DIED)
THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT KARPA IN
BANTWAL TALUK, POST SIDDAKATTA, D.K. AND THE
RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDING AT KAJANALA HOUSE,
SULLIA TALUK, POST MUDUNGARA, D.K
ADDL.R9 KALANIDHI
D/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT WELL, AGRAHARA,
CHANTHARU PO, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R10 JAGADEESHA N.S
S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT WELL, AGRAHARA,
CHANTHARU PO, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R11 RAMESH N.S
S/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT WELL, AGRAHARA,
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
6
2026:KER:9100
CHANTHARU PO, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R12 BHARATHI
D/O.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, RESIDING AT VIGNESH KRIPA HOUSE,
DOOR NO.3-95, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT WELL, AGRAHARA,
CHANTHARU PO, BRAHMAVARA, UDUPI TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL. RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 7TH RESPONDENT VIDE
ORDER DATED 11.01.2010 IN CMP 5136/02 IN CRP 801/01
ADDL.R13 JYOTHI.K
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O.ISHWARA BHAT AND W/O.SRIKRISHNA BHAT K, RESIDING
AT KELAMBOOR HOSUE, P.O.ISHWARAMANGALA 574 313, PUTTU
TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL.R14 NAINA U
AGED 23 YEARS
D/O.ISHWARA BHAT AND W/O.KRISHNA SHARMA DALAJI HOSUE,
P.O.TELLAR 576 117, KARNATAKA STATE
ADDL. RESPONDENTS R13 AND R14 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED 8TH RESPONDENT,
ISHWARA BHAT IN THE CRP 801/2001 AS PER ORDER DATED
12.12.2025 IN IA NO.3071/2014 IN CRP 801/2001
BY ADVS.
SMT.N.SHOBHA
SHRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
15.01.2026, ALONG WITH CRP.800/2001, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
7
2026:KER:9100
CR
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
C.R.P.Nos. 800 & 801 OF 2001
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2026
ORDER
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The revision petitioners are the defendants in a suit
for partition. They assail the correctness of an order passed
by the learned Sub Judge rejecting two applications filed by
them under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (the Code) seeking amendment of the final
judgment and decree to delete the direction for compounding
interest at the rate of 12% on past and future profits.
2. In the preliminary decree, the defendants were
directed to pay past and future profits. However, in the
final decree, an additional direction was issued entitling
the plaintiffs to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on
such profits, with the interest calculated for one year being
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
added to the principal for the succeeding year. Contending
that this direction was impermissible, the revision
petitioners filed two applications under Sections 151, 152,
and 153 of the Code seeking amendment of the final judgment
and decree. The learned Sub Judge dismissed the applications,
holding that the impugned clause in the final decree was
passed on merits and, therefore, was not amenable to
correction under the aforesaid provisions. It was further
held that an application under those provisions cannot be
used as a substitute for an appeal, revision, or review.
3. When the revision petitions came up for hearing, the
learned Single Judge of this Court found that two other
Single Benches of this Court had taken divergent views on the
scope of the jurisdiction of civil courts under Sections 151
and 152 of the Code. In view of the said conflict, the
matters were referred to a Division Bench for authoritative
consideration. The learned Single Judge noted that in
Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y.Kuries (P) Ltd. (1987 (2) KLT
449), this Court held as follows:
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
"Section 151 of the Code can have application
only when no other remedy is available
according to the existing provision of law. In
exercise of the inherent powers, the court
cannot override general principles of law.
x x x x x
A party who slept over his rights and
allowed a wrong decree to become final by not
filing an appeal, revision or review cannot
approach the court under S.151 to rectify the
wrong on the ground that the case is hard."
The Court also observed that in George v. Federal Bank Ltd.,
2000 (1) KLT 715, a learned Single Judge held that where the
plaintiff was legally entitled only to interest at the rate
of 11.5% per annum, the award of interest at the rate of
17.25% per annum would seriously prejudice the defendant. It
was therefore held that, unless such an order was corrected
under Section 152 of the Code, it would result in undue
hardship and irreparable injury to the defendant. In the
reference order, it was further observed that the learned
Single Judge, while rendering the decision in George v.
Federal Bank Ltd. (supra), had not noticed the earlier
decision of this Court in Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y.
Kuries (supra).
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
4. We have heard Adv.Smt.Uthara Ashokan, the learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.
5. As regards the scope of Section 152 of the Code, the
legal position is well settled. Section 152 is intended to
amend or correct two categories of errors in judgments,
decrees, or orders, namely: (a) clerical or arithmetical
mistakes, and (b) errors arising from any accidental slip or
omission. No elaborate discussion is required to explain what
constitutes clerical or arithmetical mistakes. Clerical
mistakes are those that occur in the course of typing or
writing, while arithmetical mistakes are those that occur in
the course of calculation.
6. In respect of the second category, namely errors
arising from accidental slips or omissions, the decisive test
is whether it is apparent from the record that the court
intended to do something, but failed to do so owing to an
accidental or inadvertent omission. In other words, Section
152 applies only where the judgment, decree, or order
contains or omits something at variance with the true
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
intention of the court. [See Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald
Joseph Coelho (AIR 2001 SC 1084)].
7. The Apex Court has clarified in Jayalakshmi Coelho
that before exercising powers under Section 152 of the Code,
the court must be satisfied that the judgment, decree, or
order contains or omits something which was intended to be
otherwise, or not intended at all; that is to say, while
passing the judgment, decree, or order, the court must have
had in its mind that the judgment, decree, or order should
have been passed in a particular manner, but that intention
was not translated into the judgment, decree, or order due to
an accidental slip or omission.
8. In Dwarka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
[(1999) 3 SCC 500], the Apex Court held that no court shall,
under the cover of the aforesaid provision, modify, alter, or
add to the terms of its original judgment, decree, or order
anything which has happened, not as to correct any mistake or
omission which is intentional. In such cases, the remedy of
the party is to prefer an appeal, revision, or review, as the
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
case may be. Similar views were expressed in Master
Construction Co. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1966 SC 1047). In a
given case whether Section 152 is attracted or not depends on
the facts of that case.
9. In the present case, as rightly contended by the
revision petitioners, the award of interest at the rate of
12% per annum on profits was not even sought in the plaint.
What was sought in the plaint was only simple interest at the
rate of 6%. However, the trial court passed the following
direction in its final judgment :
"The plaintiffs are entitled to 3 years past
profits and future profits from the date of suit
till delivery of possession payable by defendants
3 to 5 at the rates shown in Ext.C1 report with
12% interest per annum. The interest so calculated
for one year will be added to the principal for
the next year and so on and so for. This direction
is given as the matter was pending so long and the
rates calculated by the commissioner were those
prevailing at that time. The properties allotted
to defendants 3 to 5 will be a charge for the
same."
(emphasis added)
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
From the above, it is beyond dispute that the fixation of
interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum
as fixed by the Commissioner, as well as the direction for
its yearly compounding, was not the result of any accidental
slip or omission. It was intentionally made for reasons
recorded in the judgment.
10. In such circumstances, the petitioners were not
justified in moving the court to amend the direction in the
decree and judgment under Section 152 of the Code. The trial
court was, therefore, right in holding that the remedy of the
petitioners does not lie under Section 152, as their attempt
was to recall the directions issued by the court on merits
and that too for reasons recorded in the final judgment.
11. Coming to the question whether there is any conflict
between the decisions in George v. Federal Bank Ltd. and
Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y. Kuries (P) Ltd., we are of the
view that the general observations in George v. Federal Bank
Ltd., referred to in the reference order, were made in the
context of the peculiar facts of that case. However, we
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
clarify that, irrespective of whether an error in the
judgment or decree causes serious prejudice to a party, the
court can correct such a mistake in exercise of its power
under Section 152 of the Code only when the judgment, decree,
or order reflects something which was not intended by the
Court.
12. The observation in Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y.
Kuries (P) Ltd. that Section 151 of the Code applies only
where no specific remedy is provided under the law and that,
while exercising its inherent powers, the court cannot
override or contravene the general principles of law, is
indeed correct. At the same time, the provision contained in
Section 151 of the Code is distinct from that contained in
Section 152. From the plain language of Section 151, it is
evident that the civil court is empowered to pass such orders
as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the court. The powers of the court
under Section 151 of the Code are complementary to the powers
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
specifically conferred on the court by the Code (Padam Sen
v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 218).
13. In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-
operative Society Ltd. and Others (AIR 2008 SC 225), the Apex
Court considered the scope of inherent powers of the Civil
Court under Section 151 of the Code in the above context. The
Court held as follows:
"19. Code of Civil Procedure recognised the inherent
power of the court. It is not only confined to the
amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under
Section 152 of the code but also inherent power in
general. The courts also have duty to see that the
records are true and present the correct state of
affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever
that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so
as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its
jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the
decree or order. This provision, in our opinion,
should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner.
A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the Court
both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such
a power of the court is well recognized."
(emphasis added)
17. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the
view that the general observations made in George v. Federal
Bank Ltd., and Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala K.Y. Kuries (P)
CRP Nos.800/2001, 801/2001
2026:KER:9100
Ltd., were rendered in the factual context of the respective
cases, and that there is no apparent conflict between the two
decisions.
The revision petitions are thus dismissed upholding the
impugned orders. The learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose
of the matter at the earliest.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
