Smt.Rajabala Chowdary vs K.Sitarama Rao
2025 Latest Caselaw 1983 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt.Rajabala Chowdary vs K.Sitarama Rao on 11 February, 2025

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.816 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - 3rd party

aggrieved by the docket order dated 03.10.2018 passed in I.A No.485

of 2018 in O.S No.99 of 1991 by the learned II Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar.

2. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri V.S.R.M.V Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel representing

Sri Pushadapu Subbarao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 -

plaintiff on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was a third party to the suit proceedings. The respondent

No.1 - plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of

sale dated 09.11.1989 against the respondent Nos.2 to 8 - defendant

Nos.1 to 7 for executing the sale deed by receiving balance sale

consideration. The trial Court in its judgment specifically deleted plot

Nos.845, 849, 912 to 917 and 960 from the plaint schedule. As such,

the same could not have been figured in the decree. The petitioner -

3rd party purchased plot No.914 admeasuring 315 sq. yards through a

registered sale deed bearing document No.12142 of 2012 dated

19.10.2012. While, the petitioner was intending to construct a unit

shed in her land, some persons claiming to be the purchasers of the

plot based on the decree of the Court, interfered with the possession

of the petitioner. On enquiry with her vendor, he informed that while

passing the judgment, a specific observation was made that the

plaintiff was not entitled to seek registration of some plots. On

scrutiny of the documents, the petitioner found that the decree was

not in consonance with the judgment. As such, she requested the

defendants - J.Dr's to get the decree amended, but they were not

showing any interest. As such, she approached the Court for

amendment of the decree but the trial Court observing that the

petitioner was a third party to the suit proceedings and had no interest

in the property as on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of

the plaintiff, dismissed the petition.

3.1. The learned counsel further submitted that any party

could bring to the notice of the Court that the decree was not in

consonance with the judgment more particularly when the petitioner

was an affected party. The above exercise could be undertaken by the

Court even suo-moto. The petitioner being a purchaser of one of the

said plots had locus standi to file the application. The trial Court

passed the order erroneously and relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Tilak Raj Vs. Baikunthi Devi (dead) by

LRs. 1.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,

supported the order of the trial Court contending that the revision

petitioner ought to have filed a suit for rectification of entries. The

petition filed by her also would disclose that she had filed O.S.

No.233 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District against respondent Nos.2 to 8 for interference with her

possession. The present petition was filed only for gathering evidence

in the said suit. As such, the same was not maintainable and prayed

to dismiss the petition.

5. As seen from the judgment of the learned II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in O.S.99 of

1991 dated 19.11.1998, the plaintiff averred that he purchased 281

Plots in Sy.Nos.292, 293, 301, 302, 303 situated at Jeedimetla Village

under the agreement of sale dated 09.11.1989 from defendant No.1.

Defendant No.1 in his written statement contended that items

Nos.174 to 183 i.e., plot Nos.845, 849, 912 to 917, 960 and 994 were

2009 (3) ALD 23 (SC)

not subject matter of the agreement dated 09.11.1989 as the said plots

were sold earlier to the said date and contended that plots in items

No.1 to 173 were yet to be conveyed but they were not conveyed as

the full price was not paid. The trial Court in its judgment in para

No.7 at page No.7, last but one para, held that:

"It is also an admitted fact that the defendants have agreed to execute the sale deeds at the price of Rs.46.50 ps per square yard. The defendants have taken a specific plea that plot Nos.845, 849, 912 to 917, 960 and 994 are not covered under the agreement of sale. As far as this aspect is concerned on a perusal of the list appended to Ex.A1 agreement of sale, it can be clearly understood that these plots i.e., 845, 849, 960, 912 to 917 are not covered under the agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for registration of these plots".

6. However, in the result part, while decreeing the suit, it

was recorded that:

"The suit is decreed with costs as prayed for, on the condition of the plaintiff depositing the balance of sale consideration of Rs.17,11,524-37/- within one month time from this date in default to deposit the balance of sale consideration, the suit shall stand dismissed."

7. As such, a decree was prepared including all the plaint

schedule plots (281 in number) without excluding plot Nos. 845, 849,

912 to 917, 960 and 994 which are not part of agreement of sale as

observed by the trial Court in its judgment.

8. The petitioner was a subsequent purchaser and was a

third party to the judgment and decree. The trial Court observing that

after more than 10 years of passing of decree, as the petitioner who

was a third party to the suit proceeding had filed the petition under

Section 152 read with order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to amend the decree in

consonance with the judgment, rejected the application filed by the

petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had no interest in the

property as on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of the

plaintiff and the petition filed by her was not maintainable.

9. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tilak Raj Vs.

Baikunthi Devi (dead) by LRs. (Supra-1) wherein a Patwari or a

revenue officer while issuing a certified copy of jamabandhi had

mentioned wrong khasra number and the suit filed on the basis of the

decree could not be executed due to the mistake in the khasra number

and a fresh suit was filed for rectification of mistake which was

dismissed on the ground that remedy available under Section 152 of

CPC was not resorted to by appellant, held that:

"14. The aforesaid mistake was of clerical nature which could have been corrected by applying the provisions of Section 152 of the CPC. Counsel appearing for the respondents also during his submissions fairly accepted the aforesaid position. The remedy that was available to the appellant was to file an application seeking for amendment of the decree by way of correcting the clerical mistake in respect of Khasra Number. Since the mistake was clerical in nature and the appellant being not responsible for the said clerical mistake which had occurred due to wrong recording of Khasra Number in Khasra Girdawari, we find no reason as to why such a genuine and bona fide mistake cannot be allowed to be corrected by exercising the powers under Section 152 of the CPC. In K. Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy, (2001) 5 SCC 37, this Court held as follows:-

"Section 152 provides that a clerical or arithmetical mistake 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".

15. Since the court exists to dispense justice, any mistake which is found to be clerical in nature should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested in the court for sub-serving the cause of justice. The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to bona fide mistake. Whatever is intended by the court while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein otherwise it would only be destructive of the principle of advancing the cause of justice. In such matters, the courts should not bind itself by the shackles of technicalities.

16. In S. Satnam Singh and Ors. vs. Surender Kaur and Anr., reported in 2008(15) SCALE 626, the Court held as follows:-

"21. The court may not have a suo motu power to amend a decree but the same would not mean that the court cannot

rectify a mistake. If a property was subject matter of pleadings and the court did not frame an issue which it ought to have done, it can, at a later stage, when pointed out, may amend the decree."

"22. The power of amendment, in a case of this nature, as noticed hereinbefore, would not only be dependent upon the power of the court but also the principle that a court shall always be ready and willing to rectify the mistake it has committed."

10. Considering that the petitioner filed the petition to

amend the decree in consonance with the judgment by deleting plot

Nos. 845, 849, 912 to 917, 960 and 994 from the decree and the said

prayer sought by the petitioner was with regard to an accidental slip

or omission made by the Court at the time of passing the decree, the

Court ought to have corrected the same when the same was brought to

its notice. Under Section 152 of CPC, the Court can even suo-moto

can make the correction when the same was brought to its notice. As

the petitioner was claiming to be purchaser of one of those plots and

is an affected party, as such, she has locus to file the application. As

observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court shall always be

willing and ready to rectify the mistakes it has committed, as no party

should suffer due to the bonafide mistakes committed by the Court,

while passing the order or decree and the intention of the court must

be properly reflected in the decree, as otherwise it would affect the

cause of justice. The trial Court ought to have allowed the petition

instead of dismissing the same on technicalities.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by

setting aside the docket order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

in I.A No.485 of 2018 in O.S No.99 of 1991 dated 03.10.2018. I.A

No.485 of 2018 is allowed as prayed for by the petitioner. The trial

Court is directed to execute a rectification deed of sale by deleting

plots 845, 849, 912 to 917, 960 and 994 from the decree. No order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Dt.: 11.02.2025 dsv