Holding

The High Court was correct in refusing to entertain the application; Section 362 bars alteration of a judgment except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, and the inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to override this prohibition.

Summary

The appellant, a widow, claimed possession of a house that had been sold at auction to the first respondent. After the second respondent, her son, entered the house, he was convicted of trespass and the High Court ordered the house restored to the first respondent. The appellant objected to this order in a civil proceeding and later filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a declaration that the earlier criminal order did not affect her right to possession. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the relief sought was not limited to correcting a clerical or arithmetical error and that the inherent power under Section 482 could not override the saving provision of Section 362. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that Section 362 bars alteration of a judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors and that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be exercised for matters expressly prohibited by the Code, thus dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court could entertain a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 to alter or clarify its earlier order despite the prohibition in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the relief sought by the appellant falls within the scope of a 'clerical or arithmetical error' as contemplated by Section 362.
Whether the inherent power under Section 482 can be exercised to override the specific limitation imposed by Section 362.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 362, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 448

Subjects

criminal procedureinherent jurisdictionSection 482Section 362clerical errorproperty disputejudgment reviewappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

485

SMT. SOORAJ DEVI A
v.
PYARE LAL AND M'R.
January 8, 1981
[R. S. SARKARIA AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] B

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 362-Scope of.

<
,. Whet!Ier the High Court can alfe'J' or review its OlVll judgment in exercise
of inherent powers under s. 482.

Words and Phrases-'otherwise pl'ovided by thls Code or by any other lau." c
for the time being in force'-'Clerical or arithmetical error'-Meaning of.

Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates a court
not to alter its judgment. It declares that: "save as otherwise provided by this
Code or by any other law for the tin1e being in force, no Court, when it has
signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review
the same e.xcept to correct a clerical or arithnietical error." D
The house property owned by the husband of the appellant was sold in
a court auction sale and the first respondent purchased the property and
obtained possession through the Civil Court Amin. In his absence, it was
• alleged, that the second respondent (son of the appellant) had removed tl1e
lock and entered into possession. The first respondent, instituted a criminal
proceeding against the second respondent, and he was ultimately convicted and E
sentenced by the High Court under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code,
with the further direction that 'the house property be restored to the possession
of the first respondent'. Pursuant to that order the first respondent applied for
possession, but the appellant objected asserting her right to the property. The
Magistrate overruled the objection and observed that it was open to the
appe1lant to establish her right by way of a civil suit. This order was upheld
by the High Court. F
~- -- The appellant thereafter filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application before
the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
alleging that she was not a party to the criminal proceedings against the first

-' respondent and that she was in possession in her own right and that the
earlier order of the High COurt in the criminal proceedings directing restora-
tion of possession to the first respondent be clarified by a declaration that it
was not binding on her and did not affect her possession. The High Court
G
dismissed this application.

Dismissing the appellant's appeal

HELD : 1. The High Court was right in declining to entertain the appli-
cation. [489 CJ B
2. "A clerical or arithmetical error" is anl error occasioned by an accidental
slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the court never
r 15-57 SC!/81
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981) 2 S.C.R,

A intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does
not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical
error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a rristake in writing or
typing. [488 G] ,

Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Another, [1966]
3 S.C.R. 99 referred to.
B
In the instant case \Vhat the appellant sought by the applicatian, was not
the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error, but a declaration that the
High Court order in the criminal proceedings rtid not affect her right in the
house property and that the direction to restore ~ession to• the first respon·
dent was confined to that portion only of the house property respecting which
the offence of trespass was committed so that she was not evicted from the •
c portion in her possession. This controversy cannot be brought within the des~ ~\
cription "clerical or arithmetical error". [488 D·F]

3. The inherent power of the Court under section 482 of the Code is not
contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362 and, therefore,
f
the attempt to invoke that power by the appellant can be of no avail.
[488H-489A] •
D 4. The inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for
which is specifically prohibited by the Code. [489 BJ
doing that
•
'

Sa11katha Singh v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1962 SC 1208 referred to.
5. The prohibition in section 362 against the Court altering or reviewing
its judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force.". These words refer only to those
-
E
provisions where the Court has been expressly authorised by the Code or other
law to alter or review its judgment. [489·B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 471
of 1979.
F From the Judgment and Order dated 5-1-1979 of the Allahabad
High Court in Criminal Case No. 5127 of 1978.
Kameshwar Prasad and Pramod Swarup for the Appellant.

G
S. K. Jain for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PATHAK, J: This appeal by special leave is directed against an
-
order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an application for
"clarification" of an earlier order made by the court iJi a criminal
proceeding.
The dispute in this appeal relates to a property described as house
H No. 24/47, Birhana Road, Kanpur. A suit filed by the South India
Trading Company against Jethmal Laxmichand was decreed and exe-
cution proceedings were taken for the attachment and sale of the
-.
SOORAJ DEVI v. PYARE LAL (Pathak, J.) 487

aforesaid house property. The house was owned by one Khem Raj, A
.. who died leaving a widow, Smt. Sooraj Devi (the appellant) and a
son, Kailash Chandra Jain (the second respondent). The property
was purchased by Pyare Lal (the first respondent). Pyare Lal
obtained possession through the Civil Court Amin on 8th October,
1965, but in his absence Kailash Chandra Jain is said to have remov-
ed the lock and entered into possession. In a criminal proceeding B
against him on a complaint by Pyare Lal, he was ultimately convict-
ed and sentenced by the High Court under s. 448, Indian Penal Code
by an order dated 1st September 1970, under which the High Court
) also directed "that house No. 24/47, Birhana Road, Kanpur be restored
to the possession of the complainant". Pursuant t() that order, Pyare c
Lal applied for possession. The appellant filed an objection, assert-
ing a right to the property. The Magistrate overruled her objection,
observing that it was open to her to establish her right by way of
suit. The rejection of her objection was upheld by the High Court
by its order dated 21st July, 1978. The appellant then filed Crimi-
nal Miscellaneous Application No. 5127 of 1978 before the Higla D
Court under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that
she was not a party to the criminal proceeding against Kailasil
Chandra Jain, that she was in possession in her own right, and that
the earlier order of the High Court dated 1st September, 1970 direct-
ing restoration of possession to Pyare Lal be clarified by a declara-
tion that it was not binding on her arid did not affect her possession. E
On 5th January, 1979, th~ High Court dismissed the application
in view of the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander
Agarwala etc.(') The order has led to this appeal.
Before passing on the merits of this appeal, we may observe that
the house property has been, and still is, the subject of civil litigation. F
Civil Suit No. 73 of 1963 was filed by Kailash Chandr.!_ Jain a'nd his
?*'rilfuor sons alleging that they were entitled to the house property and
the decree obtained by the South India Trading Compa'ny was not
binding on them and could not be executed against them. As the
property was meanwhile sold and the sale confirmed the suit was
regarded as infructuous and the plaint was allowed to b~ rejected G
for want of court fee. Instead, Civil Suit No. 53 of 1964 was filed
by the minor sons of Kail ash Chandra Jain claiming that they were
joint owners of the property, that the sale conferred no right, title
or interest in Pyare Lal and that they were entitled to an injunction.
The appellant, who had originally been impleaded as a defendant in
the suit, was t!ansposed to the array of plaintiffs. The suit was H
dismissed in default, but subsequently restoration was allowed by the
(I) A.I.R. 1979 SC 87.
488 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A Trilil Court on payment of costs, and the time for payment of costs
was extended by the High Court. A third suit, Civil Suit No. 18
of 1977, was filed by the appellant for partition. An application
for interim injunction for preserving th~ appellant's possession in the
house property has been dismissed by the trial court.
B The sole question before us is whether the High Court was right
in refusing to entertain Criminal Miscellaneous Applic~tion No. 5127
of 1978 on the ground that it had no power to review its order
dated 1st September, 1970. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure declares :

c "Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in !om" no Court, _when it
•
has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case,
shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical
or arithmetical error".

It is apparent that what the appellant seeks by the application
D is not the correction of a clerical or arithmetical error. What she
desires is a declaration that the High Court order dated 1st Septem-
ber, 1970 does not affect her rights in the house property and that
the direction to restore possession to Pyare Lal is confined to that
portion only of the house property respecting which the offence of
E trespass was committed so that she is not evicted from the portion
in her possession. The appellant, in fact, asks for ;~n adjudication
that the right to possession alleged by her remains unaffected by the
order dated 1st September, 1970. Pyare Lal disputes that the
order is not binding on her and th~t she is entitled to the right in the
property claimed by her. Having considered the matter, we are
F not satisfied that the controversy can be brought within the descrip-
tion "clerical or arithmetical error". A clerical or arithmetical error
is an error occasioned by an aecidental slip or omission of the court. ""<;
It represents that which the court never intended to s_ay. It is an
error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its
discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a
mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or
typing. Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and
A nother.(')
The appellant points out that he invoked the inherent power of
the High Court saved by s. 482 of the Code and that notwithstand-
H ing the prohibition imposed by s. 362 the High Court had power to
griint relief. Now it is wen settled that the inherent power of the
(!) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 99.
SOORAJ DEVI V. PYARE LAL (Pathak, J,) 489

court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibit- A
ed by the Code. Sankatha Singh v. State of U.P.( 1) It is true that
the prohibition in s. 362 against the Court altering or reviewing its
judgment is subject to what is "otherwise provided by this Cod.; or
by any other law for the time being in force". Those words, how-
ever, refer to those provisions only .where the Court has be.en express-
ly authorised by the Code or other law to alter or review its judg- B
l)lent. The inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the
saving provi$.iQn contained in section 362 and, therefore, the attempt
,_to invoke that power can be of no avail.

The High Court, in our opinion, is right in decliajng to entertain
the application. The appeal must be dismissed. But we may observe c
that anything said by the High Court in the criminal proceeding
agai'nst Kailash Chandra Jain should not be allowed to influence the
1 judgment of the court in the civil suits mentioned above or in any
proceeding arising therefrom.
The appeal is dismissed. D

N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.

(I) A.I.R. 1962 SC 1208.