Kerala High Court: In a case revolving around whether a civil court can, under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), amend a final judgment and decree, the Division Bench of Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ., while dismissing the revision petitions, held that Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC are confined to clerical or arithmetical error and cannot be used to modify merit-based determinations made in the judgment.
Background
The dispute arose from a suit for partition in which a preliminary decree directed the defendants to pay past and future profits. In the final decree, an additional direction was issued entitling the plaintiffs to interest at 12 per cent per annum on such profits. The defendants (‘revision petitioners’) filed two applications under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the CPC seeking amendment of the final judgment and decree and contended that the plaint had only claimed a simple interest of 6 per cent. The Sub Judge dismissed the applications holding that the impugned clause was passed on merits and hence not amenable to correction and that these provisions could not be used as a substitute for appeal, revision, or review. Subsequently, the revision petitions were heard by a Single Judge who, noting the divergent views of two Single Judge Benches in Velayudhan Nair v. Kerala Kshemam Yunik Kuries Pvt. Ltd., Trichur, 1987 SCC OnLine Ker 59, and K.V. George v. Federal Bank Ltd., (2000) 100 Comp Cas 766, on the scope of civil court jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC, referred the matter to a Division Bench.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that Section 152 of the CPC is intended to amend or correct two categories of errors in judgments, decrees, or orders:
-
clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and
-
errors arising from any accidental slip or omission.
The Court explained that clerical mistakes are those that occur in the course of typing or writing, while arithmetical mistakes are those that occur during calculation. As to accidental slip or omission, the decisive test is whether it is apparent from the record that the Court intended to do something but failed to do so owing to an accidental or inadvertent omission.
The Court relied on Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, (2001) 4 SCC 181, where the Supreme Court held that before exercising powers under Section 152 of the CPC, the court must be satisfied that the judgment, decree, or order contains or omits something which was intended to be otherwise, and that the court’s intention at the time of passing the judgment was not translated into the judgment due to an accidental slip or omission.
The Court also relied on Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 3 SCC 500, wherein it was observed that no court shall, under the cover of Section 152 of the CPC, modify, alter, or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree, or order, to correct anything which is intentional. In such cases, the remedy lies in appeal, revision, or review.
The Court observed that the fixation of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal sum as fixed by the Commissioner, as well as the direction for its yearly compounding, was not the result of any accidental slip or omission. but was intentionally made for reasons recorded in the judgment.
The Court opined that the revision petitioners were not justified in invoking Section 152 CPC to amend or recall directions issued on merits. On the question of conflict between Velayudhan Nair (supra) and George (supra), the Court clarified that the general observations in George (supra) were made in the peculiar facts of that case and, irrespective of serious prejudice, Section 152 CPC could be invoked only when the record did not reflect the court’s true intention. Further, the Court opined that the observations made in Velayudhan Nair (supra) that Section 151 of the CPC applies only where no specific remedy is provided under the law and that while exercising its inherent powers, the court cannot override or contravene the general principles of law, were correct.
The Court emphasised that there was a difference between Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. Under Section 151, the civil court is empowered to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and this power is complementary to the powers specifically conferred on the court by CPC.
The Court referred to Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Coop. Society Ltd., (2007) 13 SCC 421, wherein it was observed that a decree may be corrected under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC to ensure the record presents the correct state of affairs, but not to review or when no mistake or slip occurred.
Consequently, the Court concluded there is no apparent conflict between George (supra) and Velayudhan Nair (supra), as each was rendered in its factual context, and dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the impugned orders and directing the Sub Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest.
[Venkatramana Bhat v. Anantha Bhat, CRP No. 800 of 2001, decided on 6-2-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice P. Krishna Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Revision Petitioners: V.V. Asokan (SR.), K.I. Mayankutty Mather (SR.), Uthara Asokan, Advocates.
For the Respondents: K. Shrihari Rao, Advocate.