The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a decree amendment. The trial court corrected clerical errors in boundary descriptions under Section 152 CPC. The High Court held no prejudice was caused as both parties understood the property identity. The revision was dismissed without costs.
The CRP is dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1941
CRP.No.750 of 2003
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-02-2003 IN OS 33/1979 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI
RESPONDENTS/REVISION PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
THARAKKAL ESTATE RECEIVER ADVOCATE T.RAVISANKAR, OTTAPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP.No.750 of 2003
2
ORDER
This CRP is against an order of the trial court allowing amendment to the decree in a recovery suit. Some mistakes were crept in the boundary description of two sides which was found to be clerical in nature. As such, the application was allowed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code rectifying the mistake crept in the decree against which the CRP was filed. Nothing was brought to the notice of this court in order to show whether any prejudice was caused to any of the party to the proceedings. Both the parties proceeded with the suit fully understanding the subject matter and its identity and a decree was passed. No dispute was raised with respect to the two boundaries or the mistake crept in the plaint schedule regarding the above said two boundaries. On the other hand, both the parties proceeded with the suit fully understanding the identity of the property in question. There is no reason for exercising any interference to the order passed by the trial courts. Hence, the CRP deserves only dismissal but without costs.
The CRP is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE
Skk//16/290719
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's order allowing amendment to a decree solely due to clerical mistakes in boundary descriptions.
Whether the parties suffered any prejudice from the clerical mistake crept in the decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Tharakkal Estate Receiver
Kunhilaxmi
Venugopalan
Satyabham
Santhakumari
Rugmini
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
