V.Sunil vs M/S Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd
2026 Latest Caselaw 489 Tel

Telangana High Court

V.Sunil vs M/S Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd on 8 April, 2026

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                     AT HYDERABAD
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

           CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2020 of 2019

                        DATE: 08.04.2026

Between:
V. Sunil

                                                       ...Petitioner

                                AND

M/s. Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd.

                                                     ...Respondent

                             ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 20.06.2019 in

I.A.No.587 of 2019 in O.S.No.2912 of 2007 on the file of the

learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at

L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri G. Sai Prasen, learned counsel representing

Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for the revision 2 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

petitioner and none appeared for the respondent. Perused the

entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter

referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a

suit vide OS No.2912 of 2007, seeking to pass a decree ordering

specific performance of contract of agreement directing the

defendant to execute the registered Sale deed in respect of suit

schedule property situated at Plot No.230 in Central Park,

Phase-II in Sy.Nos. 218/4 and 218/5 situated at Kondapur

Village, Sheerlingampalli, Ranga Reddy District to the extent of

350 Sq. yards, in case of failure to execute, Court may execute

the registered sale deed and to grant perpetual injunction

restraining the defendant, their agents, sub-ordinates from

alienating or creating any charges over the schedule property in

favour of any third party pending disposal of the suit and also to

award costs of the suit.

3 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant remained

exparte and as such, the suit was decreed with costs on

26.07.2010. The learned trial Court while decreeing the suit, the

issue was framed for consideration that whether the plaintiff is

entitled to specific performance as prayed for. But, finally when

the matter has been disposed of, decreed the suit without

answering the said issue.

6. The learned trial Court as there being discussion on the

same, has granted only a relief of perpetual injunction

restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit

schedule property on 26.07.2010.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein

approached the learned trial Court and filed an application vide

IA No.587 of 2017 under Section 152 of CPC r/w. 151 of CPC

seeking to amend the Judgment and Decree in OS No.2912 of

2007 dated 26.07.2010 from that the suit of the plaintiff be and

the same is hereby decreed with costs and perpetual injunction

is granted restraining the defendant and his men from 4 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiff over the schedule property.

8. The learned trial Court considering the contentions and

entire material placed on record, the order is extracted below:

Perused the suit record and copy of the judgment and decree filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The present petition under Section 151 of CPC was filed to rectify the judgment and decree passed in OS No.2912 of 2007 dated 26.07.2010 under inherent powers of this Court. As noticed from the record though the suit was filed for specific performance and perpetual injunction, the then presiding Officer of this Court had passed judgment and decree granting injunction without any relief for specific performance. Even it appears from the record that the plaintiff had obtained certified copy of judgment and decree by filing copy application No.13672 of 2010.

After lapse of 9 years almost touching a decade, the petitioner at this stage cannot settle the unsettled rights by mere filing this application on the ground that he could not contact the counsel all these years as he got transferred to some other place. So no one can be blamed for their own acts. The petitioner cannot compel the Court for the sake of his convenience to modify the judgment and decree passed by this Court in a routine manner by comparing it to that of an application under Section 152 of CPC which is only meant for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes. So the reasons assigned in the petition are not convincing and thus held against the petitioner.

5 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

9. Admittedly, the suit was filed seeking the relief of specific

performance of an agreement of sale. However, the learned trial

Court, without applying judicial mind, passed the impugned

order in a mechanical manner. It failed to consider the issues

framed and in fact, did not frame any issue with respect to the

relief of injunction. Further, the Court neither addressed nor

adjudicated the issue relating to specific performance, yet

proceeded to grant a relief which was never sought by the

plaintiff. This clearly reflects a casual approach on the part of

the trial Court in disposing of the suit, particularly by way of an

ex parte judgment.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner has no remedy except to file an application under

Sections 152 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is

untenable. Section 152 CPC is confined only to correction of

clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from omissions. The

present case, however, involves a patent error apparent on the

face of the record in respect of the judgment, as the trial Court

granted a relief beyond the scope of the pleadings without 6 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

adjudicating the main issue. Therefore, the revision filed under

Section 115 CPC is maintainable, as it challenges the legality

and propriety of the order passed in the application under

Sections 152 and 151 CPC, which sought amendment of the

judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2912 of 2007 dated

26.07.2010. The error in question goes beyond a mere clerical

correction and strikes at the root of the judgment itself.

11. On the face of the judgment and decree passed by the

learned trial Court in O.S.No.2912 of 2007, it is evident that

although an issue was framed as to whether the plaintiff is

entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for, the

trial Court failed to frame a necessary and consequential issue

regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief of perpetual

injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating

any charge over the suit schedule property.

12. Despite the suit being one for specific performance of

contract coupled with a prayer for perpetual injunction, the trial

Court framed only a single issue relating to specific performance

and omitted to frame an issue concerning the injunction relief.

7 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

Furthermore, the trial Court did not properly adjudicate even

the issue that was framed.

13. Although the decree was passed ex parte, the errors

apparent on the face of the record are two fold:

(i) failure to frame proper and necessary issues, and

(ii) granting a relief not sought for and not arising from the pleadings or issues.

The petitioner, invoking Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, sought amendment of the judgment and decree

on the ground that such errors ought to be corrected.

14. For the sake of better appreciation Section 152 of CPC is

extracted hereunder:

"Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on an application by any of the parties."

However, the scope of Section 152 is limited. It does not extend

to correcting substantive errors such as failure to frame issues,

non-consideration of issues, or granting reliefs beyond 8 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

pleadings. The errors committed by the trial Court in the present

case cannot be characterized as clerical mistakes or accidental

slips or omissions. They are substantive errors affecting the

merits of the case. Such defects can only be corrected by a

competent appellate court and not by invoking Sections 151 or

152 of CPC.

15. The Trial Court, while dismissing I.A.No.587 of 2019,

rightly noted that the petitioner had obtained the certified copy

of the judgment nearly nine years prior and approached the

Court after considerable delay. The application under Section

152 was thus filed with significant laches and without availing

the appropriate remedy of appeal. Even though the learned

counsel for the petitioner contended that an appeal could not be

filed for various reasons, this Court need not examine those

aspects in the present revision, which is confined to the question

of whether the relief sought falls within the scope of Sections

151 and 152 of CPC.

16. In view of the limited scope of Section 152 of CPC and the

nature of the errors involved, this Court is of the considered 9 of 9 NNR, J CRP_2020_2019

opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere with the

findings of the trial Court. The petitioner, if so advised, is at

liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under law, including

seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal by invoking the

relevant provision under the Limitation Act.

17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

confirming by the Order dated 20.06.2019 in I.A.No.587 of 2019

in O.S.No.2912 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional

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

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Date: 08.04.2026 vjb