Prahlad Kumar and Another vs Anand Swapoop and Others

N.K. Mehrotra, J.

This is a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda in Misc. Case No.58/87 rejecting the application 3Ga/2 of the plaintiffrevisionist under Section 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making correction of the commissioner''s Map Ga2/61 which is a part of final decree for partition dated 21.1.1981 passed in Regular Suit No.14 of 1961.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists. I find that the suit for partition was decreed in the year 1961 and final decree was prepared on the basis of the Commissioner''s report. After inviting the objection, the Commissioner''s report was disposed of and final decree was prepared and after the preparation of the final decree, the possession was given to the different cosharers long back. The learned trial court has rejected the application for correction of the map prepared by the Commissioner on the ground that the objection of the parties in the proceedings of the final decree were heard and decided on merit on 27.9.1980 and the final decree was prepared on the basis of the report of the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the revisionists has referred Bechev Lal and others v. Hem Singh and others. AIR 1953 (sic) 485 to show that an error in a decree arising from any accident, slips or omission may at any time be corrected without appeal and only limitation upon the power of this court is to be found in cases where third parties have acquired right under the erroneous judgment in the interval.

Learned counsel for the revisionist also referred B. Shivananda v. Andhra Bank Ltd, and another (1994) 4 SCC 368 on the same point to show that the application for correction under Section 152 can be moved at any stage.

In the instant case, I find that the rights of the parties have already been settled long back and since then there may be lot of changes in the spot situation. The prayer under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is such that if it is allowed, it will unsettle the vested rights of the parties to the final decree. Therefore, settled position cannot be unsettled by entertaining an application in the garb of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. This is not a case in which the decree is not in accordance with the judgment. Therefore, trial court has not exercised its jurisdiction with any illegality or material irregularity.

In view of the above, the revision is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

The revision is dismissed.

(Revision dismissed)