Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Second Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), rejecting an application under Sections 151 and 152, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (CPC) to amend the final decree, a Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., dismissed the same and held that once a final decree has been passed, it can neither be amended nor revised, and the remedy available to the party is to challenge the decree under appropriate provisions of law.
Background
In the case at hand, the petitioner filed an application to amend the final on the ground that the shading down in the sketch map annexed to the decree sheet was incorrect. By an order dated 16 March 2018, the Court issued a limited emergent notice to the respondents based on the petitioner’s contention. However, none of the respondents appeared.
Consequently, the trial court dismissed the application stating that once a final decree was drawn and executed by the parties, it could not be amended or revised in the manner sought for by the petitioner.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Analysis
The Court examined the application filed by the petitioner and observed that what was sought was not just the correction of an arithmetic, clerical, or typographical error, but a modification of the decree.
Further, the Court stated that “Once a final decree has been passed, the said decree can neither be amended nor revised, and the only remedy available to a party is to challenge the decree under the appropriate provisions of law”, that is, challenging before the appellate court or filing a review petition before the Court passing the decree.
The Court referred to State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 328, and found no infirmity with the impugned order warranting interference.
Decision
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and stated that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances.
[Y. Anirudha Rao v. S. Rathna, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 3005, decided on 5-1- 2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rameshchandra, Advocate
