Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramkali Devi Saxena W/O Late Shri ... vs Amarnath Garg Adopted Son (Dead) ... on 7 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8027
1 CR-126-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 126 of 2025
SMT. RAMKALI DEVI SAXENA W/O LATE SHRI BAIJNATH
PRASAD (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE DINESH KU
Versus
AMARNATH GARG ADOPTED SON (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Santosh Agrawal- Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 5.
ORDER
This civil revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed against
the order dated 29/04/2024 passed by Fifth District Judge, Gwalior in MCC
No.241/2023 by which an application filed by petitioner under Section 152
of C.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that the mother of petitioner, Smt. Ramkali
Devi, Satish Kumar and Sanjay Kumar filed a suit for redemption of
mortgage, which was subsequently converted into suit for declaration. The
matter was compromised and an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of C.P.C.
was filed for drawing a compromise decree. In that application, it was
mentioned that the defendant accepts the ownership, possession and title of
the plaintiffs and mortgagor has received back the mortgage amount and
now, nothing is outstanding. The statements of parties were also recorded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8027
2 CR-126-2025
and on the basis of aforesaid application, a compromise decree was passed,
which was verbatim in the line of application for compromise.
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that in fact the ownership,
title and possession of all three plaintiffs was never admitted by parties and
there was an error in the application which has also crept in the compromise
decree, therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 152 of C.P.C.
for correction of decree. However, by the impugned order, the said
application has been rejected.
4. Per contra, counsel for respondents has supported the reasonings
assigned by the Court below.
5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for parties.
6. Section 152 of C.P.C. reads as under:-
"152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders .-
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."
7. Therefore, it is clear that the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in
judgments/decrees or order or errors arising therein from any accidental slip
or omission may be corrected by the Court at any time. Now the only
question for consideration is as to whether the compromise decree, which
was drawn verbatim in the line of application, can be corrected in exercise of
power under Section 152 of C.P.C. or not?
8. In the compromise application, it was mentioned that title ownership
and possession of plaintiffs is admitted. Admittedly, the suit was filed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8027
3 CR-126-2025
mother and her two sons. The compromise decree was also passed in the line
of compromise application. Therefore, in absence of any deviation from
terms and conditions of compromise application, it cannot be said that there
is any arithmetical and clerical or accidental slip or omission in the judgment
and decree passed by the Court below.
9. It appears that now by seeking correction of aforesaid judgment and
decree, petitioner wants to deny the right of his brother in the property in
dispute that cannot be done while exercising the power under Section 152 of
Cr.P.C.
10. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that while exercising the
power under Section 152 of C.P.C. the Court is required to look into the
intentions of the parties and if the situation so warrants, then the power can
be exercised.
11. To buttress his contentions, counsel for petitioner has relied upon
the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla
Vs. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and Others reported in
(2007) 10 SC CK 0039.
12. So far as the aforesaid contention of petitioners are concerned, it is
suffice to mention here that while allowing an application under Order 23
Rule 3 of C.P.C. the Trial Court has to come to a satisfaction with regard to
the voluntariness as well as the correctness of compromise decree. In the
present case, the statements of parties were also recorded and the mother of
petitioner as well as defendants had appeared and had made a statement that
they have entered into a compromise and compromise decree be drawn in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8027
4 CR-126-2025
light of compromise application. Thus, the mother of petitioner and other
plaintiff had clearly accepted the title of plaintiffs as mentioned in the
compromise.
13. Under these circumstances, where the statements of parties were
also recorded before accepting the compromise application, this Court is of
considered opinion that nothing is left for this Court to find out as to what
was the real intention of parties behind mentioning the facts in paragraph 1
of compromise application.
14. By no stretch of imagination, this Court can draw an inference that
the intention of mother of plaintiffs was to deprive the respondents from the
fruits of property in question.
15. As no case is made out warranting interference, a ccordingly, the
petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
