Varanganti Sudhan Reddy, ... vs V Sulochana, Warangal Dist
2023 Latest Caselaw 18 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 18 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 January, 2023

Telangana High Court

Varanganti Sudhan Reddy, ... vs V Sulochana, Warangal Dist on 3 January, 2023

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5857 of 2016

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "C.P.C.") to set aside

the order, dated 27.09.2016, in I.A.No.232 of 2016 in O.S.No.5 of

2011 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Warangal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The respondent-plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.5 of 2011 seeking

declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of the

petitioner-defendant and to award maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per

month and costs. The trial Court allowed the suit vide judgment

and decree dated 16.09.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.137 of 2016 before this Court

and this Court vide order dated 08.03.2015 suspended the operation

of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.5 of 2011, dated 16.09.2015.

While so, the respondent filed I.A.No.232 of 2016 under Section

152 of C.P.C. before the trial Court to amend/correct the decree

incorporating/adding (i) Clause No.(iii) of the decree after the

words before 5th of every month the words "past from the date of

the suit and future" (ii) after Clause No.(iv) a new clause (v) may

be added as "the Defendant is directed to pay the cost of Rs.4,704/-

to the Plaintiff."

4. The trial Court allowed the application on 27.09.2016 and

passed the following order:

" Heard the learned advocate for plaintiff/petitioner. Perused the record including the explanations submitted Sri T.Naveen Kumar, in S.R.No.751/2016 and Smt.K.Nirmala in S.R.No.752/2016 wherein they sought for excuse as this mistake was committed due to rush of work and therefore, in the circumstances stated in their explanations and having regard to the submissions made by learned advocate for petitioner and having regard to the contents of the petition affidavit of petitioner, Smt.V.Sulochana, the petition is allowed as prayed for directing the correction since it is purely a clerical mistake."

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court

committed error in passing the impugned order. He submits that

since this Court has suspended the operation of the original

judgment and decree passed by the trial Court , the trial Court had

become functus officio and it would have to dismiss the application

filed by the petitioner for amendment of the decree. Therefore, he

prays to set aside the impugned order. He has placed reliance on

the decisions of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P.1 and Bandlamudi

Subbaiah & Sons Ltd., Guntur v. Central Ware Housing

Corporation, Guntur2.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

commending the order of the trial Court submits that drafting of the

decree was not properly done and a mistake was committed due to

rush of work and the said mistake was treated as clerical mistake.

As such, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application as

sought for.

7. Thus, on hearing the submissions of both the counsel and

perusing the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the only point that arises for consideration is; whether

the impugned order is sustainable in law?

8. Coming to the present case, I.A.No.232 of 2016 was filed

under Section 152 of C.P.C. to amend/correct the decree

incorporating/adding in the decree as stated supra. It appears that

(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 500

2014 (1) ALD 152

the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the

judgment and decree passed by it in O.S.No.5 of 2011 was

suspended in A.S.No.137 of 2016 vide order dated 08.03.2016 and

allowed the application filed by the petitioner on 27.09.2016 i.e.

subsequent to filing of the appeal, which is erroneous.

9. In Dwaraka Das's case (1 supra), the Apex Court at para

No.6 held as under:

"Section 152 C.P.C. provides for correction of clerical arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The correction contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application......."

10. In view of the above settled position of law, after passing of

the judgment, the Court becomes functus officio and the matter

which has been judicially decided by the decree cannot be

reopened by an application under Section 152 C.P.C. The errors

arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently not

only in a decree drawn up by a Ministerial Officer of the court, but

even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the court.

It is well-settled that the act of the court should not prejudice any

party and courts have the duty to see that their records are true and

represent the correct state of affairs. But, in the instant case, from

the impugned order, it appears that the decree was not properly

drafted and clerical mistake was occurred. As such, after taking