Correction of decree and plaint schedule allowed for accidental omission; non-parties must pursue their own remedies separately.

A court may correct a decree and plaint schedule under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the omission is accidental and the property can be identified from the pleadings and evidence. Such correction is limited to making the record conform to the judgment's true intention and cannot be used to review the decision or resolve a disputed change in the property described. Persons not party to the suit are not bound by the decree and may pursue their own remedies in accordance with law; their impleadment was therefore rejected in this proceeding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court could correct the decree and the plaint schedule under Section 152 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to supply omitted particulars in the description of the suit property; (ii) Whether the applicants seeking impleadment could obtain relief in the present proceeding despite not being parties to the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the court could correct the decree and the plaint schedule under Section 152 or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to supply omitted particulars in the description of the suit property.

Analysis: Section 152 permits correction of clerical mistakes, arithmetical mistakes, and errors arising from accidental slip or omission, and the court's inherent power under Section 151 may be invoked to make the record conform to the real intention of the judgment. Such power cannot be used to review the judgment or to decide disputed questions as to what property was intended, but it may be exercised where the omission is inadvertent and the identity of the property is otherwise clear from the pleadings and evidence. The description in the body of the plaint and the surrounding materials sufficiently identified the property, and the missing schedule particulars did not amount to substitution of one property for another.

Conclusion: The correction of the decree and schedule was permissible, and the challenge to the amendment failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants seeking impleadment could obtain relief in the present proceeding despite not being parties to the suit.

Analysis: Persons who were not parties to the suit are not bound by the decree and may pursue their own remedies in accordance with law, including remedies available in execution proceedings if the occasion arises. Their claimed possession or title could not defeat the impugned order in this appeal.

Conclusion: The impleadment application was rightly rejected in this proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The decree was allowed to stand with the corrected property description, and the non-party applicants were left at liberty to work out their remedies independently in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may, under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, correct an accidental omission in a decree or schedule so long as the correction only makes the record conform to the judgment's true intention and does not reopen disputed questions or alter the substantive decision.

---