Section 152 CPC corrections are limited to obvious slips; disputed intent in court records will not justify rectification.

Section 152 CPC was held to permit correction only of clear clerical, accidental, ministerial or typographical slips, not a disputed question about what was intended when an order was made. On the facts, the recorded dismissal of the company application instead of the company petition was not shown to be an obvious accidental error, so rectification was refused. The appellate court was also said not to interfere merely to contradict the judge's own record of proceedings unless the entry was inherently impossible or self-contradictory. The refusal to correct the earlier order was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order dated 12 April 2007 could be corrected under the court's powers on the footing that a clerical or accidental mistake had been made in recording dismissal of the company application instead of dismissal of the company petition; (ii) whether the appellate court could interfere with the order refusing correction under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): whether the order dated 12 April 2007 could be corrected under the court's powers on the footing that a clerical or accidental mistake had been made in recording dismissal of the company application instead of dismissal of the company petition.

Analysis: The application for withdrawal was treated as an application concerning the main petition, but the recorded order dismissed the company application as not pressed. The power under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is confined to obvious clerical, accidental, ministerial, or typographical mistakes and does not extend to resolving a controversy about what was actually intended or said when the order was made. The record showed that the application could have led to more than one procedural result, and the court below found no clear accidental slip or omission in the recording.

Conclusion: The correction was not warranted, and the application for rectification was rightly refused.

Issue (ii): whether the appellate court could interfere with the order refusing correction under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: A court of appeal cannot displace the judge's own record of what transpired in court by embarking on an enquiry into the judge's recollection unless the recorded statement is inherently impossible or self-contradictory. The judge below had already considered the matter and declined to treat the entry as an accidental mistake. In such circumstances, interference would amount to contradicting the judge's statement of fact rather than correcting an evident clerical error.

Conclusion: Appellate interference was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to correct the earlier order was upheld, and the challenge to that refusal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits correction only of clear clerical or accidental slips, not reconsideration of the substance or intention behind an order, and an appellate court should not contradict the judge's own record of what transpired in court absent a patent and self-evident error.

---