Satsang Grah Nirman Samiti ... vs Deepa Kohli
2023 Latest Caselaw 10364 MP

                                                              1
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                             AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                   ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2023
                                               MISC. PETITION No. 2317 of 2018

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SATSANG GRAH NIRMAN         SAMITI MARYADIT
                           TEEKAMGARH MADHYA PRADESH THR. PRESIDENT
                           RAKESH DIXIT AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. 48 BAINK
                           COLONY TEEKAMGARH DISTRICT TEEKAMGARH
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI PRAKASH UPADHYAY - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    DEEPA KOHLI D/O LATE SARDAR MAN SINGH,
                                 AGED   ABOUT    58  YEARS, R/O. LUKMAN
                                 CHAURAHA TEEKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SMT. LAXMI GOSWAMI W/O RAKESH GIRI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O RAURAIYA MOHALLA,
                                 TEEKAMGARH, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. COLLECTOR
                                 DISTT- TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI RAHUL RAWAT - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
                           (SHRI L.A.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
                           NO.3)

                                 This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                               ORDER

Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is questioning validity of the orders dated 05.10.2017 (Annexure P/10) passed in MJC No. 5/16 and 04.04.2018 (Annexure P/12) Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 7/10/2023 6:21:20 PM

passed in MJC No.1900005/2016.

Counsel for the parties submit that a compromise decree was passed by the trial Court on 02.09.2015 (Annexure P/7) which took place between the parties who are petitioner and respondents herein. In the said compromise decree, under some misconception in the compromise application instead of Khasra No. '1029', it was typed as '1021' and accordingly in the compromise decree the survey no. 1021 was typed by the trial Court. He submits that after coming to know about the said typographical error, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of CPC asking the trial Court to correct the compromise decree. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide

order dated 05.10.2017 saying that the Court does not have the power to make any correction in the judgment and decree exercising extra-ordinary power of Section 151 of CPC.

Thereafter, the petitioner moved another application under Section 152 of CPC asking the Court to correct the compromise decree by mentioning correct Khasra number i.e. 1029. The said application was also rejected by the trial Court saying that application filed under Section 151 of CPC has already been rejected and further that it was not the mistake of the Court and, therefore, the khasra number cannot be corrected by filing such an application. He further submits that scope of Section 152 of CPC is not limited to the extent that the Court cannot correct the mistake committed by the Court itself but he submits that scope of exercising power of 152 is wide enough and not only the mistake committed by the Court itself can be corrected but mistake that is accidental or by commission has been committed that can also be corrected. He further submits that both the parties are of the opinion that correction is necessary because correct khasra number is 1029 and dispute in regard to the land bearing Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 7/10/2023 6:21:20 PM

khasra number 1029 was there before the trial Court.

Considering the aforesaid and on perusal of record, I am allowing the application filed under Section 152 of CPC correcting the compromise decree in which the disputed land is shown as Khasra number 1021 instead of 1029. The judgment and decree is modified to the extent that instead of Khasra number 1021, it should be read as Khasra number 1029.

With the aforesaid, the petition is accordingly disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE rao

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATYA SAI RAO Signing time: 7/10/2023 6:21:20 PM