[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shruti Infrastructure Private Limited ... vs Dalvir Singh on 7 April, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11301
1 WP-11997-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 11997 of 2026
SHRUTI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH
DIRECTIOR MUKESH AGARWAL
Versus
DALVIR SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri N K Gupta - Senior Advocate with Shri Yashasvi Pratap Singh
Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmendra Nayak - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a limited modification in the order dated
14.03.2026 passed in First Appeal No. 180/2023 by the Lok Adalat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal arose out of
the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2022 passed by the VIIIth District
Judge, Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.) in RCA No. 1A/2016. During the
pendency of the appeal, the parties filed an application under Order XXIII
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as I.A. No. 2076/2026,
stating that they had amicably resolved their dispute and entered into a
compromise. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer was made for
disposal of the appeal in terms thereof. The Court accepted the application
and consequently allowed and decreed the appeal in accordance with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11301
2 WP-11997-2026
compromise arrived at between the parties.
It is further submitted that due to a typographical error, the
interlocutory application number has been incorrectly mentioned in
paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of the final order dated 14.03.2026 as "I.A. No.
7026/2026" instead of the correct number "I.A. No. 2076/2026." It is
contended that the said mistake is purely clerical in nature and, if not
rectified, may lead to unnecessary confusion in execution proceedings and
future legal processes. Therefore, a limited modification of the impugned
order has been sought to correct the application number.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the present petition deserves to be rejected.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in
the present petition is extremely limited in nature. It is evident from the
record that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had amicably
resolved their dispute and jointly filed an application under Order XXIII
Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as I.A. No.
2076/2026. The said application was duly considered by the Court and
formed the basis for disposal of the appeal in terms of the compromise.
However, in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of the final order, the application
number has been incorrectly mentioned as I.A. No. 7026/2026, which is
clearly a typographical mistake.
Such an error, though seemingly minor, has the potential to create
ambiguity and complications in execution proceedings and in any future
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11301
3 WP-11997-2026
reference to the order. It is well settled that courts possess the inherent power
to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental
slips or omissions, so as to ensure that the record accurately reflects the true
intent of the order passed.
In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present petition deserves to be allowed to the limited extent of correcting the
aforesaid error. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated
14.03.2026 passed in First Appeal No. 180/2023 stands modified to the
extent that in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14, the interlocutory application number
shall be read as "I.A. No. 2076/2026" in place of "I.A. No. 7026/2026." All
other findings and directions contained in the said order shall remain
unaltered and continue to operate in full force.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
