Substantive correction of a decree is impermissible under clerical error powers, but loss-of-profit damages may follow wrongful contract rescission.

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to make a substantive addition to a decree by granting pendente lite interest that was not awarded on merits; such an omission must be pursued by appeal or review, and the correction order was therefore unsustainable. By contrast, where a works contract is wrongfully rescinded, Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act permits reasonable compensation for loss of expected profit, and the measure need not be proved with mathematical precision. On the facts, the contractor's claim for loss of profit was upheld, while the claim for pendente lite interest was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pendente lite interest, omitted from the original decree, could be awarded by invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the contractor was entitled to damages for loss of profit on account of wrongful rescission of the works contract.

Issue (i): Whether pendente lite interest, omitted from the original decree, could be awarded by invoking Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 152 permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical, or accidental mistakes and accidental slips or omissions. It does not authorise a court, after passing a decree, to alter the substance of its decision or add a relief that was not granted on merits. Once the decree is passed, the court becomes functus officio, and any omission going to the merits must be pursued by appeal or review. On the facts, the original decree had granted future interest only and had necessarily declined pendente lite interest; the later order under Section 152 therefore amounted to an impermissible substantive alteration.

Conclusion: The correction order granting pendente lite interest could not be sustained, and the High Court was right in setting it aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractor was entitled to damages for loss of profit on account of wrongful rescission of the works contract.

Analysis: Where a government authority unjustifiably rescinds a works contract, the contractor may recover damages for loss of expected profit under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The measure of damages need not be proved with mathematical precision; a broad and reasonable estimation is permissible. The contractor had pleaded expected profit on the contract value, and the finding of breach by the High Court remained undisturbed. In that situation, denial of damages merely because the contractor had not proved detailed items of actual expenditure was erroneous. The trial court's grant of 10% of the contract value as damages was within the permissible range on the facts.

Conclusion: The contractor was entitled to damages for loss of profit, and the disallowance of the claim by the High Court was unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The decree was modified to include damages for loss of profit while denying pendente lite interest, with the appellant ultimately succeeding in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to make a substantive addition to a decree under the guise of correcting an accidental omission, but a contractor wrongfully deprived of a works contract is entitled under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to reasonable compensation for loss of expected profit.

---