Umakanta Acharya Vs Nibedita Bose

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.512 of 2025

¶4

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶5

Umakanta Acharya …. Petitioner

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Smt. Nibedita Bose and Others

¶8

… Opposite Parties

¶9

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : None

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 1^st September, 2025

¶12

B.P. Routray, J.

¶13

1 . Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶14

No one appears for the Opposite Parties despite notice is made sufficient. It is also submitted by Mr. Mohanty that the Opposite Parties (Defendants) were set ex-parte before the trial court.

¶15

2 . Present CMP is directed against impugned order dated 20^th

¶16

January, 2025 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nilgir passed in C.S.

¶17

CMP No.512 of 2025

¶18

Page 1 of 8

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶21

No.159 of 2024-I, wherein the prayer of the Plaintiff to make correction in the description of plot number has been refused.

¶22

3. The Plaintiff filed the suit praying for declaration of right title

¶23

interest and possession in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ land with further prayer for permanent injunction. The suit schedule ‘B’ land is described as follows:-

¶24

“B” SCHEDULE SUIT PROPERTY

¶25

Balasore Dist Collectory, Nilgiri Sub Registry, Tahasil/PSNilgiri, Mouza-Nizgarh, Khata No.133,

¶26

Plot No.2311 Area-A0.04 dec. out of A0.22 dec.”

¶27

4. The suit was ended with ex-parte judgment and decree in favour

¶28

of the Plaintiff. The decree dated 22^nd November, 2024 reads as

¶29

under:-

¶30

“The suit be and the same is decreed on contest against the defendant no.3 and ex parte against other defendants but in the facts and circumstances without cost. It is hereby declared the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the ‘B’ scheduled suit land by virtue of RSD no.757 dtd.12.05.2003 measuring an area A0.04 dec vide Exhibit no.2 over Ms suit plot no.2311 under khata no.133 vide Exhibit no.1. The defendant is hereby permanently injuncted from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over his purchased land, i.e. ‘B’ scheduled suit land”

¶31

CMP No.512 of 2025

¶32

Page 2 of 8

¶33

Signature Not Verified

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶35

5. Thereafter a petition dated 15^th January, 2025 was filed by the Plaintiff praying to correct the plot no.2311 as plot no.2311/2910, on the ground that the error incorporated in the plaint is nominal and without any intention. It is further stated that after purchase of the land in question by the Plaintiff, original plot no.2311 was divided creating the by-plot 2311/2910 measuring area A0.04 dec. in Khata No.133. But this could not be inserted in the plaint properly due to inadvertence. The learned trial court refused to make correction in the decree stating that since the decree is correctly mentioning ‘B’ schedule property as mentioned in the plaint, no error is there on the part of the court to correct the plot number within the ambit and scope

¶36

of Section 152 of the CPC. Thus the short point comes for consideration in present case is that, whether the party is allowed to correct the land schedule after the decree is pronounced.

¶37

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla v.

¶38

Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others, (2007) 13

¶39

SCC 421 , has in similar issue discussing the scope of Court’s power

¶40

under Section 152 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has held as follows:-

¶41

22. In Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan [(2003) 1 SCC 197 : AIR 2003 SC 351] this Court opined that when a

¶42

CMP No.512 of 2025

¶43

Page 3 of 8

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶46

decree had been drawn up by the High Court, the Court can take recourse to Section 152 of the Code stating : (SCC p. 203, para 14)

¶47

“ 14 . … In our opinion, the successful party has no other option but to have recourse to Section 152 CPC which provides for clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected at any time by the court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. A reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or omission in manifesting the intention of the court by couching the reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their succeeding in the suit. Section 152 enables the court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. Power of the court to amend its orders so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the court at the time when the order was made was upheld by Bowen, L.J. in Swire, Re, Mellor v. Swire [(1885) 30 Ch D 239 (CA)] subject to the only limitation that the amendment can be made without injustice or on terms which preclude injustice. Lindley, L.J. observed that if the order of the court, though drawn up, did not express the order as intended to be made then ‘there is no such magic in passing and entering an order as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to make its own records true, and if an order as passed and entered does not express the real order of the court, it would, as it appears to me, be shocking to say that the

¶48

CMP No.512 of 2025

¶49

Page 4 of 8

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶52

party aggrieved cannot come here to have the record set right, but must go to the House of Lords by way of appeal.’ ”

¶53

23. The same Bench again in Pratibha Singh v. Shanti Devi Prasad [(2003) 2 SCC 330 : AIR 2003 SC 643] held : (SCC pp. 336-37, para 17)

¶54

“ 17 . When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3CPC is capable of being cured. After all a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or Section 47 CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of each case — which of the two provisions would be more appropriate, just and convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 CPC by the court which passed the decree by supplying the omission. Alternatively, the exact description of decretal property may be ascertained by the executing court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. A decree of a competent court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it would be more appropriate to invoke Section 47 CPC.”

¶55

xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

¶56

CMP No.512 of 2025

¶57

Page 5 of 8

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶60

25. It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have been misled. It is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety. They are to be construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an amendment, one property is being substituted by the other. If the court has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have sufficiently described the suit lands. Only because some blanks in the schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate Commissioner has also been appointed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the schedule were missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order.”

¶61

7. In the case at hand, as stated above, the ‘B’ schedule property in the suit speaks plot no.2311 and it is the clear statement of the Plaintiff that said plot after purchase by him was bifurcated giving rise to creation of bi-plot No.2311/2910 measuring A0.04 dec only. The extent of land in the by plot is not differing the land extent mentioned in RSD No.757 dated 30^th April, 2002 which is the basis of claim of the Plaintiff. The RSD further speaks that A0.04 dec. is purchased out CMP No.512 of 2025 Page 6 of 8

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶64

of the original plot no.2311. Therefore the claim of the Plaintiff as seen from the plaint and the contents of the registered sale deed does not create any ambiguity in respect of his extent of land purchased from original plot no.2311.

¶65

8. It is the specific case of the Plaintiff that he could not bring such fact of correction of bi-plot no.2311/2910 in the plaint due to inadvertence. The record also does not show otherwise anything malice on the part of the Plaintiff to differ the intent of the decree. The record of right of Khata No.133 also shows in the remarks column regarding carving out of bi-plot no.2311/2910 from the original plot no.2311 by virtue of the order passed in OLR Case No.51/09. To substantiate the same as stated in the remarks column of the RoR, the plaintiff produces certified copy of order dated 26^th March 2009, 28^th March 2009 and 27^th April 2009 passed in OLR Case No.51/09. The same is kept on record.

¶66

9. As explained above in the afore-cited case, the power of the Court is not restricted only to correct the mistake committed on its part but to give substantial justice to the party without changing the decree. If the present Petitioner will not be permitted to correct the plot number with the bi-plot no.2311/2910 then the purpose of the

¶67

CMP No.512 of 2025 Page 7 of 8

¶68

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:56

¶69

decree would be futile on the face of admitted facts that the original plot was divided creating a bi-plot in respect of the land purchased by the Plaintiff vide RSD No.757 dated 30^th April, 2003 and moreover

¶70

the entire basis of the claim of the Plaintiff is on execution of said sale deed.

¶71

Therefore, upon going through the entire records and analyzing

¶72

the basis of claim of the Plaintiff as well as the decree granted in favour of the Plaintiff, nothing harm is found in allowing the prayer of the Plaintiff for correction of the plot number as 2311/2910 instead of 2311. Accordingly this court is inclined to allow the prayer of the Petitioner.

¶73

10. In the result the CMP is allowed and the impugned order dated 20^th January, 2025 under Annexure-6 is set aside with further direction to learned trial court to correct the decree putting plot no.2311/2910 in place of 2311. The rest part of the decree remains unaltered.

¶74

( B.P. Routray)

¶75

Judge

¶76

M.K. Panda/P.A

¶77

CMP No.512 of 2025

¶78

Page 8 of 8

Umakanta Acharya v. Nibedita Bose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umakanta Acharya v. Nibedita Bose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Right Step Media Services Private Ltd., Rajasthan Vs Fast Communication, C.D.a., Cuttack

Sulata Sahani Vs Sushil Kumar Mohanty

Rajinikanta Seth Vs Manoj Kumar Naik

Brahmananda Mohapatra Vs Bhagaban Mohapatra

Sakuntala Nayak Vs State of Orissa

Trinath Sahu Vs Sudarsan Raula