AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The C.R.P. No. 3438 of 1990 was disposed of by the order dated 26th August, 1991, allowing the revision petition. The learned counsel for the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition has filed a letter before the Registrar, High Court on 3-10-1991 to post the matter for being mentioned on the ground that the Court has failed to consider one aspect regarding maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and also certain decisions. That is how the matter has now come up for hearing.
Order XX, Rule 3 of the CPC provides that the judgment shall be dated and signed by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it, and when once signed, it shall not afterwards be altered or added to, save as provided by S. 152, or on review Section 152 of the Civil P.C. enables the court to correct the clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Order XLVIIJ, Rule 1 of the CPC deals with the power of review of Judgment. A Division Bench of this Court has pointed out on Raja Sarvaguna Kumara Krishna v. Subbarayudu (1960) 1 An WR 255 that:
"A judgment once delivered cannot be varied or altered except under the provision of O.XLVII, CPC or under S.152 CPC if there is a clerical error or mistake."
The learned counsel for the respondent had also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Samarendra Nath Sinha and Another Vs. Krishna Kumar Nag, which it is pointed out that (at p. 1443 of ATR)
"It is true that under 0.20, R. 3 of the Code once a judgment is signed by the judge it cannot be altered or added to but the rule expressly provides that a correction can be altered or added to but the rule expressly provides that a correction can be made under S. 152. The Rule does not also affect the court''s inherent power under S. 152152. u/s 152 clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or a omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties, It is thus manifest that errors arising from an accidental slip can be corrected subsequently not only in decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the court but even in a judgment pronounced and signed by the court."
From a consideration of these two decisions it is clear that the Court may correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slip or omission u/s 151, CPC or by exercising its inherent power under S. 151 Under O.XLVII, Rule 1, CPC the Judgment can be reviewed if there are grounds for review. In other cases, when once the judgment is signed, it is not open to the court to correct the judgment as provided under O.XX, R. 3, C.P.C.
In the present case by means of a letter, the learned counsel for the respondent wants to consider the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and also certain decisions. Since it is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake or any error arising out of any accidental slip or omission it cannot be corrected either under S.151 or 152, Civil Procedure Code. There is also no application for review of the Judgment under O.XLVII, R.1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, no orders are necessary on the letter filed by the learned counsel for the respondent and the letter is rejected.
Order accordingly.