Ramayya Pillai vs Ratnaswami Pillai and Others

Somasundaram, J.—This is a revision by the plaintiff against an order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 1955 in O.S. No. 75 of 1951. O.S. No. 75 of

1951 was compromised and a razinama was filed into Court. It is alleged in the petition that in drafting the decree a clerical mistake has crept in, in

that instead of drafting the decree that the second defendant shall take possession of the movcables with him as receiver it is drafted that the

second defendant shall take the moveables in the plaint schedule. No doubt this mistake was discovered very late. The petition to rectify this

mistake was filed in the Court, which passed the decree. Without issuing notice to the other side, the order passed is as follows:

I do not see how a compromise decree could be amended by a petition. Hence this petition to amend the decree is rejected.

Section 152 of the CPC is wide enough to include a compromise decree. It does not restrict itself to decrees passed other than compromise

deerees. Even in compromise decrees, if there are clerical or arithmetical mistakes, certainly it can be rectified. The question is whether it is a

clerical or an arithmetical mistake in the drafting of the decree which must be in accordance with the razinama. That question has not been gone

into. Without going into that question, the lower Court under the impression that the Court has no power whatsoever to amend the decree has

dismissed the petition. The lower Court has power u/s 152, Civil Procedure Code, to find out whether there is any clerical o r arithmetical mistake.

The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside. The lower Court will issue notice to the other side and go into the question whether in the

drafting of the decree according to the razinama there was any clerical or arithmetical mistake and dispose of the petition according to law. Costs

of this petition will abide the decision of the lower Court.

The above view is supported by the decisions in Koka Adinarayana Rao naidu Vs. Koka Kothandaramayya Naidu and Others, , and

Kerumunnissa Begum v. Jahi Mir Jamaluddin ILR (1937) Bom. 837.