Supreme Court of India
LAKSHMI RAM BHUYANversusHARI PRASAD BHUYAN AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 483
- Decided
- 20 November 2002
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- R C LAHOTI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that where a higher court’s judgment fails to specify the reliefs, the omission is a clerical error that can be rectified under Section 152 of the CPC, and the decree should be drawn up in conformity with the corrected operative part of the judgment.
Summary
In a title suit filed in 1978, the trial court dismissed the suit, the first appeal upheld the dismissal, and the High Court allowed the second appeal but only directed that a decree be drawn up by the trial court. The trial court prepared a decree that mentioned only costs, omitting the numerous reliefs claimed in the plaint. The judgment‑debtors challenged this order, and the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s failure to specify the reliefs required correction under Section 152 of the CPC and whether the decree should have been drawn up by the High Court itself. The Court held that the omission of reliefs was a clerical error that could be rectified without injustice, and that Section 152 empowers the court to amend its judgment to give effect to its true intention. Consequently, the order of the trial court drawing up the decree was set aside and the parties were permitted to move the High Court under Section 152 to obtain a corrected operative part of the judgment and a proper decree. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- The High Court’s direction that the trial court draw up the decree despite not specifying reliefs
- Whether omission of reliefs in the operative part of a judgment constitutes a clerical error correctable under Section 152 CPC
- The obligation of appellate courts to state the precise reliefs in their judgments
- The appropriateness of using Section 152 CPC to amend a judgment/decree without causing injustice
Legislation cited
Subjects
Section 152 CPCjudgment amendmentdecree preparationrelief specificationcivil procedureappellate court obligationsdominant litusexecutionrevision
Judgment
LAKSHMI RAM BHUY AN A
V,
HARi PRASAD BHUY AN AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 20. 2002
[R.C LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ,] B
Code of Civil Procedure 1908:
Section 152-Amendment ofjudgment-Appeal allowed by High Court
reversing judgments of Courts belo~~But did not pass decree and sent back C
the case to trial court for passing the san1e-Rules showing that direCtion
could be given to trial Court for drawing the decree not brought to the notice
of the Court-Held, ordinarily decree should have been drawn up by High
Court-Successful party can have recourse io the Section to vary its judgment-
Section enables the Court to vary its judgn1ent so as to give effect to its D
n1eaning and intention, subject to .the only /in1itation that the amendment is
n1ade without causing injustice.
Order XX, XU, Rule 3 I-Judgment and decree-Drajiing of-The Court
decreeing the suit and appellate Court disposing of appeal against disniissal
of suit should e.Yan1ine the reliefs and then construct the operadve part of the E
judgn1ent in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in confor111ity with the
fin,iings arrived at.
The suit filed by plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by Trial Court
and appeal against it was also dismissed by Appellate Court, Second appeal
was allowed by High Court High Court sent back the case to the original F
court for preparation of tho decree accordingly, Civil Judge while ordering
decree to be drawn up held that High Court in its judgment in Second
appeal desired that decree should be prepared by trial court regarding
all tne reliefs claimed and directed the decree to be drawn incorporating
all the reliefs which were so•1ght for in the plaint, Against the orders of G
the Civil Judge, judgment-debtor (appellant) filed revision, which was
dismissed by High Court Hence the present appeal,
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
275 H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C:R.
A HELD: 1.1. The plaintiff being dominus litus, enjoys a free hand in
couching the relief clause in the manner he pleases and cases are not
wanting where the plaintiff makes full use of the liberty given to him. It
is for the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then
construct the operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring
B .the reliefs granted in conformity with the findings arrived at on different
issues and also the admitted facts. The Trial Court merely observing in
the operative part of the judgment that the suit is decreed or an appellate
court disposing of an appeal against dismissal of suit observing the appeal
is allowed, and then staying short at that, without specifying the reliefs to
which the successful party has been found entitled, tantamounts to a failure
C on the part of the author of judgment to discharge obligation cast on the
Judge by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. (281-C-EJ
1.2. The Single Judge allowing the second appeal, should have clearly
and precisely stated the extent and manner of reliefs to which the plaintiffs
were found to be entitled in his view of the findings arrived at during the
D course of the appellate judgment. The parties, the draftsman of decree and
the executing Court cannot be left guessing what was transpiring in the
mind of the Judge decreeing the suit or allowing the appeal without further
placing on record the reliefs to which the plaintiffs are held entitled in
the opinion of the Judge. [281-G, HJ
E 2. Ordinarily the decree should have been drawn up by the High
Court. Ariy rules framed by the High Court which countenance such a
practice as directing the Trial Court to draw up a decree in conformity
with the judgment of the High Court has not been brought to the notice
of the Court. The successful party has no other option but to have recourse
F of Section 152 of CPC which provides for clerical or arithmetical mistakes
in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any
accidental slip or omission being corrected at any time by the Court either
on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. A reading
of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs
were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or
G omission in manifesting the intention of the Court by couching the reliefs
to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their suc~eeding in the
suit. Section 152 enables the Court to vary its judgment so as to give effect
to its meaning and intention. Power of the Court to amend its orders so
as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the Court at the
H time when the order was made, is subject to the only limitation that the
L.R. BHUYAN v. H.P. BHUY AN [R.C. LAHOT!. J.] 277
amendment can be made without injustice or on terms which preclude A
injustice. f282-A-EJ
Re Swire Mellor v. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 239, referred to.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7540 of
2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.2001 of the Assam High
Court in R.A. No. 6 of 2000. C
Pravin Choudhary, for the Appellant.
K.B. Sinha, Ms. Kawaljeet Kochhar, Golap Sharma and J.D. Jain for
the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
E
An inadvertent error emanating from non-adherence to rules of procedure
prolongs the life of litigation and gives rise to avoidable complexities. The
present one is a typical example wherein a stitch in time would have saved
nine.
F
In the year 1978 a title suit was filed. The parties arrayed are 3 as
plaintiffs and 19 as defendants. The properties involved in the suit too are
very many, described in several schedules appended to the plaint and marked
as Schedule A, B, C, D, E & F. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint are also
very many. Briefly stated they are:-
G
(i) a decree or decrees for recovery of khas possession of the 'B'
Schedule lands which comprise the D, E, F, Schedule lands and
for confirmation of possession on 'C' Schedule lands with
declaration of title by the plaintiff alone on 'A' Schedule lands
as self-acquired property of Late Mamat Ram, father of the H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A plaintiffs; and
(ii) a decree or decrees for cancellation of Khaitan No. 35 of
defendant No.6 and of Khatian No.2 I of defendant No. 7 and
of Khaitan No. 10 of defendant Nos. 8 & 9 over D, E & F
Schedule lands respectively and for declaration that the
B defendant Nos. 6 to I 0 have not tenancy rights or rights of
oi::cupancy as raiyats over 'B' Schedule lands in their respective
possession; and
(iii) decrees for cancellation of the mutation. of late Nandiram,
c predecessor-in-interest of the defendant No: I 0 to 18 of late
Rajani Kanta Bhuyan, predecessor-in-interest of Abhiram
predecessor-in-interest of d~fendant No. I to 5 of Abhiram
defendant No. 19 and of late Joyram, predecesso~in-interest of
Abhiram defendant No. I 9 in the dag chitha of the dags Nos.
1017, 1013, 1I82 and I 011 o( K.P. Patta No. 518 of village
D
Majirgaon Mouza-Ramcharani of District Kamrup, described· in
the 'A' Schedule and for sending a precept to the Revenue
Authority for correction of the Chitha accordingly and for issue
of separate patta for 'A' Schedule lands the annual Revenue
Authority for correction of the chitha accordingly and for issue
E of separate patta for 'A' Schedule lands and annual Revenue of
which is more than five rupees in the name of the plaintiffs and
0
to issue precept to the prop er Revenue Authority with direction
of the Revenue Authority for cancellation of the said Khatian
Nos. 34, 21and10 and for cancellation of the mutation or names
F of the aforesaid persons namely Nandiram, Rajani, Abhiram and
Joyram in the Dag Chitha in the said dags Nos. 1017, 1013,
1182 and.1017 ofK.P. Patta No. 518 of village Majirgaon Mouza-
Ramcharani, District Kamrup and for issue of a separate K.P.
Patta for the A Scheudule dag Nos. I 017, I 013, 1182 and 10 I 7
G in the names of the plaintiff and
(iv) decree of the costs .of the suit against the defendants contesting
the plaintiff claim and the suit; and
(v) decree for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs are
H legally entitled.
L.R. BHUY AN v. H.P. BHUY AN [R.C. LAHOTI. J.] 279
The above said reliefs are sought for in the background of multiple A
litigations between the parties preceding the institution of the suit.
The suit was seriously contested. By judgment and decree dated
10.01.1994, the Trial Court directed the suit to be dismissed. The dismissal
of the suit was upheld in first appeal by learned Additional District Judge.
The plaintiffs filed second appeal, which was heard by a learned single Judge B
of the High Court who formed an opinion that the appeal deserved to be
allowed and allowed the same by judgment dated 18.05.1995. The operative
part is contained in paragraphs 5 & 6 which are reproduced hereunder:-
"5 From my above discussion the appeal is allowed. Respondents are C
directed to pay Rs. 500 as cost to the appellants. The case is sent back
to the original court for preparation of the decree accordingly.
6. In the result the appeal is allowed."
As per directions of the High Court, the Trial Court drew up a decree
on 07.04.1996. The said decree mentions costs only. The reliefs claimed by D
the plaintiffs.in the suit were not mentioned therein Execution was applied
for. Therein, it appears, the plaintiffs sought for the same reliefs as they had
set out in the plaint, being allowed to them in execution, which was resisted
to by the judgment-debtors. On 26.08.1997, the learned Civil Judge passed
two orders. In execution proceedings the learned Civil Judge held that as no E
fonnal decree regarding delivery of khas possession etc. was drawn up, the
execution was liable to be stayed till preparation of a proper decree in the
suit. The record of the suit was directed to be put up for preparation of
necessary decree. On the same date, by a separate order passed in the suit,
the learned Civil Judge set out briefly the operative parts of the judgment of
the Trial Court in the original suit and that of the High Court in second F
appeal (referred to hereinabove) and then concluded as under:-
"In the circumstances stated above, I respectfully understand that
the Hon'ble High Court desired that the decree should be prepared by
this court granting all the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs/appellants.
The earlier decree prepared by this Court was only in respect of the G
cost granted by the Hon'ble High Court, the decree should have
contained all the reliefs claimed in the plaint. Therefore, for ends of
justice, it is necessary to amend ·and correct the said decree.
Accordingly the Sheristadar is directed to prepare the decree as per
direction of the Hon'ble High Court, and put up the same before the H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A undersigned on I 0.09.1997. After preparing the decree, the learned
counsels for the parties be informed about the corrected decree."
The orders dated 26.08.1997 were challenged in Revision by the
judgment-debtors. Incidentally, the Civil Revision came to be heard by the
same learned Single Judge who had disposed of the second appeal. On
B 29.9.1999, the learned Single Judge directed the Civil Revision to be dismissed
forming an opinion that there was no infirmity or illegality in the orders of
the Civil Judge and there was no jurisdictional error therein.
)be present appeal by special leave by the judgment-debtors is directed
against the order of the High Co mt dated 29 .09 .1999.
c
Cer Lain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be noticed.
Order VII Rule I of the CPC requires the plaintiff to give sufficient particulars
of the relief, which the plaintiff claims. Order XX requires a judgment to
contain all the issues and findings or decision thereon with the reasons therefor.
D The judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party. The preparation of
decree follows the judgment. The decree shall agree with the judgment. The
decree shall contain, inter a/ia, particulars of the claim and shall specify
clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The decree shall
also state the amount of costs incurred in the suit and by whom or out of
what property and in what proportions such costs are to be paid, Rules 9 to
E 19 of Order XX are illustrativ~ of contents of decree in certain specified
categories of suits. The very obligation cast by the Code .that the decree shall
agree with the judgment spells out an. obligations on the part of the author
of the judgment to clearly indicate the relief or reliefs to which a party, in
his opinion, has been found entitled to enable decree being framed in such
a manner that it agrees with the judgment and specifies clearly the relief
F granted or other determination of the suit. The operative part of the judgment
should be so clear and precise that in the event of an objection being laid,
it should not be difficult to find out by a bare reading of the judgment and
decree whether the latter agrees with the fonner and is in conformity therewith.
A self-contained decree drawn up in conformity with the judgment would
G ·exclude objections and complexities arising at the stage of execution.
The obligations is cast not only on the Trial Court but also on the
Appellate Court. In the event of the suit having been decreed by the Trial
Court if the Appellate Court interferes with the judgment of the Trial Court,
the judgment of the Appellate Court should precisely and specifically set out
H the reliefs granted and the modifications, if any, made in the original decree
L.R. BHUYAN v. H.P. BllUYAN [R.C. LAHOTI. J.] 281
explicitly and with particularity and precision. Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC A
casts an obligation on the author of the appellate judgment to state the points
for detennination, the decision thereon, the reasons, for the decision and
when the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the
appellant is entitled. If the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and in
appeal the decree of dismissal is reversed, the operative part of the judgment B
should be so precise and clear as it would have been if the suit was decreed
by the Trial Court to enable a self-contained decree being drawn up in
conformity therewith. The plaintiff, being dominus litus, enjoys a free hand
in couching the relief clause in the manner he pleases and cases are not
wanting were the plaintiff makes full use of the liberty given to him. It is for
the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then construct the C
operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring the reliefS granted
in conformity with the findings arrived at on different issues and also the
admitted facts. The Trial Court merely observing in the operative part of the
judgment that the suit is decreed or an appellate Court disposing of an appeal
against dismissal of suit observing the appeal is allowed, and then staying D
short at that, without specifying the reliefs to which the successful party has
been found entitled tantamounts to a failure on the part of the author of
judgment to discharge obligation cast on the Judge by the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure.
In the case at hand, a perusal or the reliefs prayed for in the plaint E
-
shows that the reliefs are not very happily worded. There are some reliefs
which may not be necessary or may be uncalled for though prayed. The
reliefs may have been considered capable of being recast or redefined so as
to be precise and specific. May be that the Court was inclined to grant some
other relief so as to effectually adjudicate upon the controversy and bring it F
to an end. Nothing is spelled out from the appellate judgment. The Trial
Court, on whom the obligation was cast by second appellate judgment to
draw up a decree, was also, as its order shows, not very clear in its mind and
thought it safe to proceed on an assumption that all the reliefs sought for in
the plaint were allowed to the plaintiffs. The learned single Judge allowing G
the second appeal, should have clearly and precisely stated the extent and
manner of reliefs to which the plaintiffs were found to be entitled in his view
,of the findings arrived at during the course of the appellate judgment. The
parties, the draftsman of decree and the executing Court cannot be left guessing
what was transpiring in the mind of the Judge decreeing the suit or allowing
the appeal without further placing on record the reliefs to which the plaintiffs H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A are held entitled in the opinion of the Judge.
There is yet another infirmity. Ordinarily the decree should have been
drawn up by the High Court itself. It has not been brought to the notice of
this Court by the learned counsel for either parties if there are any rules
framed by the High Court which countenance such a practice as directing the
B Trial Court to draw up a decree in conformity with the judgment of the High
Court.
How to solve this riddle? In our opinion, the successful party has no
other option but to have recourse of Section 152 of CPC which provides for
C clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors
arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected at any
time by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of
the parties. A reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its
opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an
accidental slip or omission in manifesting the intention of the Court by
D couching the reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their
succeeding in the suit. Section 152 enables the Court to vary its judgment so
as to give effect to its meaning and intention. Power of the Court to amend
its orders so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the
Court at the time when the order was made was upheld by Bowen L.J. in re
E Swire; Mellor V. Swire, (1825) 30 Ch. D. 239, subject to the only limitation
that the amendment can be made without injustice or on tenns which preclude
injustice. Lindley' L.J. observed that if the order of the Court, though drawn
up, did not express the order as intended to be made then "there is no such
magic in passing and entering an order as to deprive the Court of jurisdiction
-
F to make its own records true, and if an order as passed and entered does not
express the real order of the Court, it would, as it appears to me, be shocking
to say that the party aggrieved cannot come here to have the record set right,
but must go to House of Lords by way of appeal."
For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial
G Court drawing up the decree is set aside. The parties are allowed liberty of
moving the High Court under Section 152 CPC seeking appropriate
rectification in the judgment of the High Court so as to clearly specify the
extent· and manner of reliefs to which in the opinion- of the High Court the
successful party was found entitled consistently with the intention expressed
H in the judgment. The delay which would be occasioned has to be regretted
L.R. BHUYAN v. H.P. BHUYAN [R.C. LAHOTI. J.] 283
but is unavoidable. Once the operative part of the judgment is rectified there A
would be no difficulty in drawing up a decree by the High Court itself in
conformity with the operative part of the judgment. If the rules of the High
Court so require, the ministerial act of drawing up of the decree may be left
to be performed by the Trial Court.
The appeal stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms with no order as B
to the costs.
K.K.T. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 152 CPC"Sign in to search