Padmini Kumari Panigrahy vs Smruti Ranjan Nayak

S.K. Mishra, J.

The present Review Petition has been preferred seeking review and recall of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21551 of 2025. The Review Petitioner seeks adjudication of the prayers which, according to her, remained undecided while disposing of the writ petition, namely, quashing of the order dated 18.06.2025 rejecting her application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, direction for correction of the defective decree dated 17.04.2025, rectification of her surname and her father's surname in the Court records, consideration of the alleged procedural irregularities in the Family Court, and other consequential reliefs. According to the Petitioner, such omission amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying a prayer for review of the said order under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

The Opposite-Party has filed a detailed objection opposing to such prayer for review, contending therein that the Petitioner has sought review of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.21551 of 2025 while making allegations against the learned Presiding Officer, Family Court, Berhampur, Court staff and Panel Lawyer. Since no relief has been claimed against him, impleading him in the present review petition amounts to abuse of the process of law and harassment.

It is the stand of the Opposite-Party that, in view of Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Order XX Rules 6A and 7 CPC, the details of marriage and other particulars, which have been elaborately mentioned in the judgment, are not required to be repeated in the decree and the learned Family Court has rightly prepared the decree within the prescribed period in accordance with law.

It is also the stand of the Opposite-Party that, so far as the correction of the Petitioner's name in the decree, the Petitioner herself described her name as "Padmini Panigrahi" in her application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Instead of seeking correction before the learned trial Court, she has sought rectification of her own mistake before this Court. This Court had already provided the appropriate legal remedy in the writ petition; the Petitioner has filed the present review petition with an oblique motive.

It is the further stand of the Opposite Party-Husband that, despite obtaining the judgment and decree in her favour, the Petitioner is blaming the learned Presiding Officer, the Court staff and the Lawyers, which reflects her mala fide intention to harass everyone, including the Opposite-Party.

Since the very basis to file the present Review Petition is, all the prayers made in the writ petition have not been dealt with and decided vide the impugned order; hence, it would be apt to reproduce below the prayer made in the writ petition.

From the above, it is amply clear that basically her prayer in the writ petition was to quash the order dated 18.06.2025, vide which her petition under Section 152 CPC to correct the alleged defective decree was rejected, and to direct the learned Court below to correct the decree, so also to correct her surname and father's surname in all Court records as "Panigrahy". It was also her prayer to issue direction for inquiry against the Presiding Officer of Family Court, the Court staff, Panel Lawyer and Opposite Party’s Advocate for alleged misconduct, delay and procedural injustice, under supervision of this Court.

It is relevant to mention here that the learned Court below, while passing the impugned order, was of the view that there is no error crept in the decree. Hence, on being asked as to how she would be aggrieved by such an observation, as the executing Court would be the same Court, the Petitioner made a submission that unless and until the defects, allegedly crept in the decree, are rectified she would be unable to initiate the execution proceeding. However, after examining the records and taking into consideration her submissions, apart from observation that there is no defect in the decree, the writ petition stood disposed of vide the impugned order with anobservation that, if she initiates any execution proceeding, based on the decree passed in C.P. No.472 of 2022, the Executing Court shall proceed further in accordance with law without pointing out any error, if any, allegedly crept in the said decree. Still the Petitioner has filed the present Review Petition on the grounds as detailed above.

So far as the contents of the decree, preparation of decree, date of decree, etc. the provisions enshrined under Order XX, Rules 6, 6-A and 7, being relevant, are extracted below:

(Emphasis supplied)

Further, Chapter V-II of G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.I deals in detail regarding drawing up a decree, such as, language of decrees, manner of drawing up decrees, mode of noting the address of the parties in the decree, manner of calculating costs in the decree, charging costs of affidavits, time for preparing the decrees, notifying decrees prepared, exhibition and destruction of decree notice, signing or objecting to the decrees by the party, signing the decree by the Judge etc. As per the G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.II, decree in original suit, in terms of Order-XX, Rules 6 & 7 of C.P.C. is to be drawn in Form No.(J) 17.

It is worthwhile to mention here that, as per Order XX, Rule 6-A, a decree is to be drawn up, as expeditiously as possible, within fifteen days from the date on which the judgment is pronounced. So far as the date of decree, as prescribed under Order XX Rule-7 C.P.C. read with Form No.(J) 17, prescribed in G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.II, the decree shall bear the day on which the Judgment was pronounced and after drawing of the decree, if the Judge is satisfied that the decree has been drawn up in accordance with the judgment, he shall sign the decree.

Rule 137 of the G.R.C.O. (Civil) Vol.I mandates that, as soon as a decree has been drawn up, the Court shall cause a notice to be exhibited on the notice board stating that such decree has been drawn up and that it may be perused by the parties or their pleaders within three days from the date of posting the notice. Such notice shall be exhibited for one week and shall be preserved in the office till it is destroyed at the end of the succeeding quarter in terms of Rule 138 of the G.R.C.O. Rule 139 mandates that any party or his pleader, may, before the expiry of the time prescribed, peruse the decree and either sign it or if it is incorrectly prepared, bring the matter to the notice of the Court. Rule 140 of the G.R.C.O. mandates that if no such objection is made on or before the date specified in the notice, the Judge shall sign the decree giving the date of his signature.

It was not the case of the Petitioner in the writ petition that, after drawing up the decree, it was never exhibited in the notice board, thereby giving a chance to the Petitioner to have her objection to such notice, pointing out the alleged discrepancies in the decree. Further, this Court, while passing the order in W.P.(C) No.21551 of 2025, not only extracted the alleged defects and omissions crept in the certified copy of the said decree, but also the observations made by the learned Court below while rejecting her application for correction of the decree. Admittedly, in the Petition dated 17.06.2025, there was no prayer to correct her so also her father’s surname in the decree. During hearing of the writ petition, on being asked, the Petitioner, apart from correction of the surname, repeatedly submitted that there is a discrepancy regarding seal and date of drawing the decree and date of signing of the same by the Bench Clerk, Administrative Officer and the Court. She did not pursue the other prayer regarding direction for inquiry against the learned Judge, Family Court, the Court staff, Panel Lawyer and Opposite Party’s Advocate for alleged misconduct, delay and procedural injustice. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of dealing with the grievance of the Petitioner regarding correction of the decree only.

However, once again, on thorough scrutiny of the decree drawn in C.P. No.472 of 2022, as at Annexure-2, it is revealed that the seal of the Family Court, Berhampur (Ganjam) appears on the first page and last page of the said decree, except page No.2, whereas the seal of the Office of the District & Sessions Judge, Ganjam is appearing on all the three pages of the said decree, apart from other requirements as per the provisions enshrined under Order XX, Rule 6 & 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so also in conformity with Form No.(J) 17.

It is further revealed from the record that the present Petitioner herself mentioned her surname so also surname of her father as “Panigrahi”, instead of “Panigrahy” in her application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (registered as C.P. No.472 of 2022) and other documents. While moving application for correction of the alleged defects in the decree, vide a handwritten application dated 17.06.2025, no prayer was made for correction of her surname so also surname of her father. For the first time, such a prayer was made in the writ petition. That apart, a prayer was made to direct the learned Court below to verify the judgment dated 04.04.2025 with reference to the Court records, including the plaint, affidavit-in-chief and order sheet so also rectification of the alleged defective decree under the supervision of this Court. Although the Petitioner subsequently raised the said issue in W.P.(C) No.21551 of 2025, since the same was not the subject matter of adjudication before the learned Family Court, no finding was made thereon by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C) No.21551 of 2025. Basically, the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.21551 of 2025 was rejection of Review Petitioner’s application for correction of errors, allegedly crept in the decree.

So far as prayer made in the writ petition to issue direction for inquiry against the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Berhampur, the Court staff, Panel Lawyer and Opposite Party’s Advocate for misconduct, delay and procedural injustice under the supervision of this Court, was neither pressed/argued before this Court during hearing of the writ petition nor any convincing reasons had been assigned in the writ petition for making such a prayer for enquiry. Further, there is no such legal provision that a defective decree has to be rectified under the supervision of a Writ Court. Rather, recording her submission that she would be unable to execute the decree, unless and until the alleged defects are rectified, this Court consciously passed the order dated 17.09.2025 in the writ petition with the following observations:

Normally judgments and decrees are to be paginated for convenience of reference. There is no specific provision in the G.R.C.O.(Civil) that each and every page of the decree shall bear the seal of the concerned Court and it has to be paginated.

Absence of pagination in the decree so also seal of the Judge, Family Court, Berhampur on the second page of the decree are not fatal, thereby affecting the Decree Holder to initiate an execution proceeding, despite observation of this Court.

Further, there is no such provision in G.R.C.O.(Civil) to the effect that each decree should bear a number and contain the dates of all hearings. Rather, the decree shall bear the date of judgment and other thing detailed in Order No.XX, Rule-6 of C.P.C. and should be drawn within fifteen days and thereafter has to be signed by the concerned Judge, on being satisfied that the decree has been rightly drawn. Accordingly, as prescribed in Form No.(J) 17, it has been indicated in the decree to have been drawn on 04.04.2025, which is in conformity with the date of judgment passed in C.P. No.472 of 2022. The said decree was actually drawn on 15.04.2025, which is well within 15 days from the date of judgment. Ultimately, after verification of the decree drawn, the same was signed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur on 17.04.2025. The allegations made by the Petitioner that judgment date has not been properly mentioned in the decree so also alleged discrepancies in the dates, as detailed in the said application, are incorrect.

On perusal of records, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the Review Petitioner that the specific reliefs prayed by her remained unadjudicated. The order dated 17.09.2025 itself demonstrates that this Court had specifically taken note of the Petitioner's grievance regarding the alleged defects in the decree. The order sets out in detail the various defects alleged by the Petitioner in paragraph 5 thereof, including the alleged absence of decree number, page numbers, judgment date, marriage particulars, appearance dates, seal, signatures, brief facts, and the alleged inconsistency regarding the date of the decree.

Thereafter, this Court considered the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court and recorded a categorical finding in paragraph 7 of the said order that the decree had been rightly drawn and that no defect, as alleged by the Decree-Holder, existed. Thus, the challenge to the rejection of the application under Section 152 CPC stood considered. Paragraph No.7 of the order dated 17.09.2025, being relevant, is reproduced below;

(Emphasis supplied)

Having regard to the Petitioner's apprehension that the alleged defects in the decree may obstruct in execution proceeding, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, clarified in paragraph 9 of the said order that if the Petitioner initiates execution proceedings on the basis of the decree passed in C.P. No.472 of 2022, the Executing Court shall proceed with the execution in accordance with law, without raising any objection regarding the defects alleged by the Petitioner, as has been extracted in para-8.2 above.

Therefore, the contention of the Review Petitioner that this Court failed to consider the grievance relating to the alleged defects in the decree is factually incorrect. The order itself records the Petitioner's contentions in detail, notices the findings recorded by the Family Court while rejecting the application under Section 152 CPC and grants an appropriate clarification to ensure that the Petitioner is not prejudiced in the execution proceedings. Merely because this Court did not grant the relief of quashing the order dated 18.06.2025 or issue a direction for correction of the decree in the manner sought by the Petitioner, cannot lead to the conclusion that the prayers were left undecided.

So far as the prayer in the writ petition for enquiry against the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Court staff, Panel Lawyer and Opposite Party’s Advocate, for alleged misconduct, delay and procedural injustice, under the supervision of this Court, in absence of any specific and convincing allegations made in the writ petition and submission to the said effect by the Petitioner, this Court has rightly not dealt with such prayer made in the Writ Petition. Further, making such kind of baseless allegations against a judicial Officer, that to after disposal of the matrimonial proceeding by pronouncing judgment in favour of the Petitioner, is contemptuous. If she had any grievance against the Court Staff so also Opposite Party’s Advocate, she could have agitated such issue during pendency of the proceeding before the appropriate forum.

Law is well settled that, any relief claimed, which is not expressly granted by the Court, shall be deemed to have been refused. In such circumstances, this Court refrains from examining the said issue in the present review proceeding.

In the circumstances, the Review Petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost for filing such frivolous petition and wasting valuable judicial time of this Court by reiterating the prayers made in the Writ Petition. However, the Petitioner being a deserted lady, taking a lenient view, the Review Petition stands dismissed without imposing any costs.

Nevertheless, it is made clear that dismissal of the review petition shall not be a bar for the Petitioner to move appropriate application before the Court below for correction of her so also of her father’s surname in the court records, judgment as well as decree, if she so intends.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application.