P. Prasad and Another vs Shirdi Enterprises

Bilal Nazki, J.—An application came to be filed by the plaintiff u/s 152 of the CPC (for short "the Code"). The suit had been decreed and the plaintiff claimed that while deciding the issue with respect to interest, the trial Court had held that the plaintiff was entitled for interest @ 12% P.A. from. 16-3-1998 on the balance amount, but while passing the decree the Court had stated that the plaintiff was entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of decree. Since the plaintiff had been held entitled to interest from 16-3-1998, the interest restricted from the date of decree i.e., 19-3-2003 was a mistake within the meaning of Section 152 of the Code. The trial Court allowed the application and corrected the decree and held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest from 16-3-1998. The revision petition has been filed against this order.

Even after holding that the plaintiff was entitled to interest from a particular date, the trial Court could restrict the payment of interest from a subsequent date. Section 152 of the Code lays down,

"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."

The section makes it clear that clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders can be corrected by the Court at any tune. Such error or mistake should be either clerical or arithmetical or should be accidental slip or omission. The principles laid down in the section are based upon the principle that a mistake committed by the Court, either of clerical or arithmetical nature should not prejudice anybody and basically this is a ministerial action which can only be corrected. In a judgment reported in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 1999 (1) SC 429 important principles were laid down by the Supreme Court while analyzing Section 152 of the Code viz., (1) exercise of power u/s 152 of the Code 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 and (2) the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. The Supreme Court held in para-6,

"6. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or 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, the 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 corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions 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. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing of effective orders in the As pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case, the trial court had specifically held the respondent-State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the Court had rejected the claim of the appellant insofar as pendente lite interest was concerned. The omission in not granting the pendente lite interest could not be held to be accidental omission or mistake as was wrongly done by the trial court vide order dated 30-11-1973. The High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the aforesaid order by accepting the revision petition filed by the State".

Applying the principles laid down in this judgment to the present case, it is not a mistake which has been committed in the decree, but the judgment itself stated,

"In the result suit is decreed with costs holding that the plaintiff is entitled to receive the balance of the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decree till realization and upon such payment by the defendants, plaintiff shall deliver the remaining books.............".

However, while deciding an issue, the trial Court had held,

"Thus it is ordered that the plaintiff is entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% from 16-3-98 on the balance of the amount".

I do not find that this was a mistake which could have been corrected by Section 152 of the Code. If the plaintiff was aggrieved, the remedy was an appeal and not the application u/s 152 of the Code. After a judgment is passed, the Court becomes functus officio and the matter which has been judicially decided by the decree cannot be reopened by an application u/s 152 of the Code.

For these reasons, the revision-petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. No costs.