Holding

A court may amend a plaint or decree after a final decree if the amendment is bonafide, does not prejudice the other party, and does not affect rights already accrued.

Summary

The appeal arose from a partition suit concerning a joint family property where the appellants had purchased undivided shares from certain defendants. A preliminary decree and a final decree were passed, both attaining finality. After the final decree, the decree holder sought to amend the decree to correct a clerical mistake – the wrong town survey number (462 instead of 463) – and the trial court allowed the amendment. The appellants challenged this amendment, arguing that no amendment to the plaint or decree is permissible after a final decree and that the correction would alter the identity of the suit land. The Supreme Court held that the court’s power to amend pleadings or decrees after a final decree is not barred, provided the amendment is bonafide, does not cause injustice to the other side, and does not affect accrued rights; a typographical error correction satisfies these criteria. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court can permit amendment of a plaint or decree after a final decree has been passed.
Whether correcting a clerical mistake that does not alter the identity of the suit land is permissible post‑final decree.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 6 Rule 17, s. Section 115, s. Section 151

Subjects

amendment of plaintfinal decreeCivil Procedure Codetypographical errorpartition suitjoint family propertynatural justicebonafide amendment

Judgment

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 48

A PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR.
....
VS.
~
REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS. l

Civil Appeal No. 942 of 2009
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
B
(S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)
Cod~ of Civil Procedure, 1908 :

0 6 r. 17 - Amendment of plaint after passing of final de- ...
~
c cree - Maintainability of - Final decree passed in suit for par-
titian - Appellants purchased undivided share in joint family
property and were parties to preliminary decree as also final
decree which attainted finality - Subsequently, application for
amendment of plaint by decree holder seeking correction in
D survey no., allowed- Challenge to, by appellant-pendente lite
purchaser - Held: Amendment application was maintainable -4-
- Wrong description of property was a typographical mistake
\
- Appellants not entitled to possession of land what they have i
:
purchased but merely acquired right to sue for partition - Iden-
E tity of suit land not changed - Survey no. is a joint family prop-
erty - Same plot was subject matter of sale - Also, appellants
could not show at to how they were prejudiced.
The question which arose for consideration in this .,.
appeal was whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to I
F allow an application for amendment of plaint after a final t
decree is passed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power of the court to allow such an l\-
G applicat.ion for amendment of plaint is neither in doubt
~
nor in dispute. Such a wide power on the part of the court
is circumscribed by two factors, viz., (i) the application
must be bonafide; (ii) the same should not cause injus-

H 48

r
PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. V. 49
REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS.

tice to the other side and (iii) it should not affect the right A
already accrued to the defendants. (Para 11) [ 54-C]
2.1 It is also not in dispute that in the plaint suit land
was described as Revisional Survey No. 165. The village
became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a
new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being B
Town Survey No. 463. However, in the plaint and conse-
quently in the preliminary decree as also in the final de-
'1 cree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned,
which was evidently a typographical mistake. (Para 10)
[ 53-H; 54-A, B] c
2.2 Appellants are pendente lite purchaser from de-
fendant Nos. 3 to 7. A preliminary decree was passed
against them. It has attained finality. They were also al-
lowed to participate in the final decree proceedings. A fi-
D
nal decree was also drawn up. It also attained finality. The
respective shares of the parties inter se in the joint family
property as also the plots of the lands which were required
to be allocated respectively in their favour is no longer in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellants, being
purchasers of undivided share in a joint family property, E
are not entitled to possession of the land what they have
purchased. They have in law merely acquired a right to
r sue for partition. Appellants merely could have filed a suit
for partition either as a plaintiff or defendant in respect of
the property which was joint family property. (Paras 12 F
and 13) [ 54-D, E, F, G, H]
M. VS. Manikayala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and 0th-
ers AIR 1966 SC 470 and Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and
Others (2008) 7 sec46 - relied on.
G
2.3 The deeds of sale in terms whereof the appellants
purchased share in the joint family property, consisted of
the suit lands including Town Survey No. 463. It is not the
case of any of the party to the suit that the Town Survey
No. 462 was the joint family property or could have other- H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 2 S.C.R.

A wise been the subject matter of the said suit for partition.
(Para 14) [ 54-G, H; 55-A] 1-

Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan (2005) 13 SCC 89;
Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society
Ltd. and Others (2007) 13 SCC 421 : AIR 2008 SC 225; North
B
Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Oas
(Dead) By LRs. (2008) 8 SCC 511 - referred to.
2.4 The principles of natural justice are required to
be complied with. But, in a case of this nature, the same '...-
c would be an empty formality. The identity of the suit land
has not been changed. It is not a case where one land is
being substituted by another. The fact that the town sur-
vey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute. It is
the same plot which was the subject matter of sale and
D only in respect thereof the appellants could claim parti-
tion. Appellants have also furthermore not been able to
+
show as to how and in what manner they have been preju-
diced. (Para 15) [ 56-H; 57-A, B, C]
Case Law Reference
E
AIR 1966 SC 470 Relied on Para 12
(200B) 1 sec 46 Relied on Para 12
(2oos) 13 sec -89 Referred to Para 14
,, -

F
(2001) 13 sec 421 Referred to Para 14
~
c2ooa) a sec 511 Referred to Para 14 ·-'
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 942
of 2009
G • ,I-

From the judgement and Order dated 10.08.2005 of the -1-
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.3666/2005.
Mahabir Singh, D. Mahesh Babu, for the Appellants.
H
PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. V. 51
REPAKA VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS.

P.S. Narasimha; M. Gireesh Kumar, Avijeet Kr. Lala,
"' .,
~

Khwairakpam Nob in Singh, for the Respondent.
A

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
S.S. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted. B

2. Jurisdiction of a civil court to allow an application for
amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed is in ques-
~ tion in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order
dated 10.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of c
Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 3666 of 2005.
3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix:
A suit for partition as also for a decree for setting aside
some deeds of sale executed in favour of some of the defen-
D
dants was filed by the respondent No. 1. Indisputably, during
pendency of the said suit, the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 sold their
right, title and interest in favour of the appellants by reason of
registered deeds of sale dated 29.06.1992 and 7.08.1992. The
said defendants having not taken any further steps in the said
suit, it was directed to be heard exparte against them. E

4. Appellants herein filed an application for impleading
themselves as parties in the said suit, which was rejected by an
r order dated 4.08.1993. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied there-
with, they filed a revision application before the High Court. The F
High Court by reason of an order dated 3.07.1998 purported to
have allowed the appellants to participate in the final decree
proceedings, stating:
"The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for partition
claiming half share in the total property. The said suit was G
decreed in terms of the prayer made in the suit. -Before
the suit was decreed, the defendants 3 to 7 in the said suit
were set ex-parte from whom the present petitioners
alleged to have purchased their shares. When the
H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S. C.R.

A preliminary decree is passed, purchaser of the shares of
the defendants are entitled to participate in the final decree ,;.
.. ,,..

proceedings to work out the equities."
5. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said order, the
appellants participated in the final decree proceeding. The fi-
B nal decree was passed on 17.12.2001. Validity or otherwise of
the said final decree was not questioned. It, thus, attained final-
ity.
6. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application for ~

c amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the de-
cree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substi-
tuting the same by the Town Survey No. 463.
I
The said application was allowed by an order dated
25.08.2003. Defendant No. 4 in the suit filed a revision applica-
D tion thereagainst, which was dismissed by the High Court by an
order dated 19.12.2003 opining that the mistake was a clerical
one.
7. Appellants herein filed an application purported to be
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting
E aside the said order dated 25.08.2003, which was dismissed
by an order dated 14.03.2005. The High Court, by reason of
the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2005 dismissed the revi-
sion application filed by the appellants thereagainst.
"f

F Appellants are, thus, before us.
8. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants, would submit:
(i) The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the impugned
G
judgment insofar as they failed to take into
consideration that an application for amendment of
plaint was not maintainable after passing of a decree.
(ii) Appellants herein having been impleaded as a party
H in the final decree proceedings in terms of the order
PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. V. REPAKA 53
VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

of the High court dated 3.07.1998, the Trial Court A
was obligated to serve a notice on the application
for amendment of plaint as also hear the appellants
thereupon.
(iii) Although entertainment of an application for
amendment of plaint after a decree is passed may B
be permissible in law, by reason thereof, the lands in
suit cannot be substituted by another.

9. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend: c
(i) Amendments, which do not affect the interest of the
.: other parties, for a bonafide purpose and for effective
execution of the decree, should be allowed.
(ii) The main object of the rule being that the court should
D
allow all amendments which are necessary to
determine the real question in controversy between
the parties without causing injustice to the other side
and only because the parties at one point of time
were negligent or careless in mentioning the correct
plot number, the same, by itself, shall not be a ground E
for taking away the right vested in a party by reason
of a valid decree passed in his favour as by reason
. thereof the identity of suit land is not changed.
t
(iii) Wrong description of a property in the plaint despite F
passing of a decree should not be rejected where it
is immaterial whether errors were introduced in the
plaint or any other document, if it is found that only
clerical mistakes were made which could be
corrected for the purpose of proper execution of a
G
decree.

10. The factual matrix involved in the matter, as noticed
hereinbefore, is not in dispute.

It is also not in dispute that in the plaint suit land was de-
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A scribed as Revisional Survey No. 165. The village became a
part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey .~

was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463. How-
ever, in the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as
also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly
B mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake.
11. The power of the court to allow such an application for
amendment of plaint is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Such a
wide power on the part of the court is circumscribed by two
~
factors, viz., (i) the application must be bonafide; (ii) the same
c should not cause injustice to the other side and (iH) it should not
affect the right already accrued to the defendants.
;.
12. Appellants herein are pendent elite purchaser from the
Defendant Nos. 3 to 7. A preliminary decree was passed against
'D them. It has attained finality. They were also allowed to partici-
pate in the final decree proceedings. A final decree was also
drawn up. It also attained finality. The respective shares of the
parties inter se in the joint family property as also the plots of
the lands which were required to be allocated respectively in
their favour is no longer in dispute. It is also not in dispute that
E the appellants, being purchasers of undivided share in a joint
familfproperty, are not entitled to possession of the land what
they have purchased. They have in law merely acquired a right
to sue for partition. [See M.V.S. M·anikayala Rao v. M.
Narasimhaswami and others AIR 1966 SC 470 and Hardeo ~

F Rai v. Sakuntala Devi and Others (2008) 7 SCC 46]

13. In view of the aforementioned legal position, the ap-
pellants merely could have filed a suit for partition either as a
plaintiff or defendant in respect of the property which was joint
family property.
G
14. On a query made by us, it was stated at the bar that .,..
the deeds of sale dated 29.06.1992 and 7.08.1992, in terms
whereof the ~ppellants purchased share in the joint family prop-
erty, consisted of the suit lands including the aforementioned
H Town Survey No. 463. It is not the case of any of the party to the
PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. V. REPAKA 55
VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

suit that the Town Survey No. 462 was the joint family property A
or could have otherwise been the subject matter of the said suit
for partition.
In Saiian Kumar v. Ram Kishan [(2005) 13 SCC 89], this
Court held:
B
"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we
are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be allowed as
the trial court, while rejecting the prayer for amendment
~as failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law
and by the failure to so exercise it, has occasioned a c
possible failure of justice. Such an error committed by the
trial court was liable to be corrected by the High Court in
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, even if Section 115
CPC would not have been strictly applicable. It is true that
the plaintiff-appellant ought to have been diligent in
. D
promptly seeking the amendment in the plaint at an early
4 stage of the suit, more so when the error on the part of the
plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in the written
statement itself. Still, we are of the opinion that the
proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of
bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between E
the parties and the refusal to permit the amendment would
create needless complications at the stage of execution
in the event of the plaintiff-appellant succeeding in the
f
suit."
F
In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Cooperative
Society Ltd. and Others [(2007) 13 SCC 421 : AIR 2008 SC
225] this Court held :

"25. It is not a case where the defendants could be said
to have been misled. It is now well settled thatthe pleadings G
of the parties are to be read in their entirety. They are to
be construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. It is
also not a case where by reason of an amendment, one
property is being substituted by the other. If the Court has
the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the
decree or passing any decree. The statements contained
in the body of the plaint have sufficiently described the suit
lands. Only because some blanks in the schedule of the
property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a
B ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the
decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written
statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he
examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore,
was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that
c an Advocate-Commissioner has also been appointed. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL
numbers in the schedule was missing, the same by itself
would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order."
In North Eastern Railway Administration. Gorakhpur v.
D Bhagwan Das (Dead) By LRs. [(2008) 8 SCC 511 ], this Gou rt
held:
"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the question of
granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule
17 C.P.C. (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned,
E these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.
postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the
proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda
Shidgonda Patil and Ors. which still holds the field, it was
held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy
F the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other
side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties. Amendments should be refused only where the
other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the
G pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment
would cause him an injury which could not be compensated
in costs. (Also see: GeJanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar
Mohanlal Kalwar)"
15. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the prin-
H <
PEETHANI SURYANARAYANA & ANR. V. REPAKA 57
VENKATA RAMANA KISHORE & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

ciples of natural justice are required to be complied with. But, in A
-\ a case of this nature, the same would be an empty formality.
The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not
been changed. It is not a case where, as submitted by Mr.
Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another. The
~ fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not B
in dispute. As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which
was the subject matter of sale and only in respect thereof the
appellants herein could claim partition. Appellants have also
-t. furthermore not been able to show as to how and in what man-
ner they have been prejudiced. c
16. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in
this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
N.J. Appeal dismissed .

..