Kaley and others vs Haryana State

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dated 22nd August, 1980, whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioners u/s 152 of the CPC was dismissed.

Admittedly, the petitioners'' reference No. 35 of 1976 was consolidated with Reference No. 13 of 1976 (Khillu etc. v. Haryana State) vide Court''s order dated March 1, 1977. Another reference No. 12 of 1976 (Risal Singh v. Haryana State) was also pending in the same Court and 13 references were consolidated with that case and the evidence was recorded in Risal Singh''s case (supra). That case was decided on June 12, 1978, whereas reference No. 13 of 1976 (Khillu etc. v. Haryana State) was decided on December 11, 1978. It appears that by mistake the petitioners'' reference No 35 of 1976 which was consolidated with reference No 13 of 19 6 was disposed of with reference No. 12 of 1976. When the petitioners came to know of this mistake, they moved an application u/s 152 of the CPC for rectification of the mistake which had occurred in the judgment. This application was resisted on behalf of the State of Haryana The learned Additional District Judge, though agreed on the factual position as contended by the petitioners, but dismissed the application on the ground that such correction was not within the purview of the Code by virtue of the provisions of Section 152, and, therefore, the present application was not competent. It is, dissatisfied with the same, that the petitioners, have come up in revision in this Court

Section 152 of the CPC reads as under:--

Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

From the reading of the provisions, it is quite evident that not only the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders may be corrected by the Court, but any errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, are also liable to be corrected under the said section. Moreover, it is well established by now that no party should be allowed to suffer for the fault of the Court or its officers. The petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer because by some accidental slip, their reference No. 35 of 1976 which was admittedly consolidated with reference No. 13 of 1976 was disposed of with reference No. 12 of 1976. Under these circumstances, this petition succeeds, the order of the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and the application u/s 152 of the CPC is allowed, with costs.