Lis pendens and accidental slip correction uphold foreclosure decree; pendente lite purchaser cannot claim surviving redemption rights.

A High Court order setting aside a final decree and remitting the matter can be a final order where it finally determines the parties' rights before that court, so a certificate under Article 133 was competent. A trial court may correct an accidental slip in a preliminary decree under its inherent power and section 152 CPC to make the decree conform to its true intention, and may pass a foreclosure decree accordingly. A purchaser pendente lite of part of the equity of redemption takes subject to lis pendens, is bound by the pending proceedings, and cannot resist a valid foreclosure decree or claim a surviving right of redemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's order setting aside the final decree and remitting the matter was a final order capable of supporting a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the Trial Court could correct an accidental slip in the preliminary decree and pass a final decree for foreclosure under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (iii) Whether a purchaser pendente lite of part of the equity of redemption could challenge the foreclosure decree and assert a continuing right of redemption.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court's order setting aside the final decree and remitting the matter was a final order capable of supporting a certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The High Court did not merely decide an interlocutory question. It finally determined the respondent's locus standi to maintain the appeal against the final decree, set aside that decree, and directed further proceedings on the footing that the respondent could participate and contest the nature of the decree to be passed. The order therefore concluded the rights in issue before the High Court, notwithstanding the remand for further proceedings in the Trial Court.

Conclusion: The certificate was competent and the objection to maintainability failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Trial Court could correct an accidental slip in the preliminary decree and pass a final decree for foreclosure under sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The suit was for enforcement of a mortgage by conditional sale and the pleadings and the tenor of the judgment showed that the Trial Court intended to pass a foreclosure decree. The reference in the preliminary decree to a decree for sale was treated as an accidental slip or inadvertent mistake. A court has inherent power, and also power under section 152, to correct such clerical or accidental errors so as to make the decree conform to its true intention. The intervening purchase by the respondent did not defeat this power because the mistake was not shown to have been the basis of any bona fide intervening right acquired in ignorance of the error.

Conclusion: The Trial Court was competent to correct the mistake and to pass a final decree for foreclosure.

Issue (iii): Whether a purchaser pendente lite of part of the equity of redemption could challenge the foreclosure decree and assert a continuing right of redemption.

Analysis: A person who purchases the equity of redemption during the pendency of litigation takes subject to the doctrine of lis pendens. The purchaser steps into the shoes of the transferor and is bound by the result of the pending proceedings. Once the final foreclosure decree was validly passed, the equity of redemption stood extinguished and the respondent could not reopen the matter or insist on a surviving right to redeem.

Conclusion: The respondent had no subsisting right to redeem and could not impeach the foreclosure decree.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order was unsustainable, the foreclosure decree passed by the Trial Court stood restored, and the respondent's claim based on pendente lite purchase failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may correct an accidental slip or omission in a decree under its inherent and statutory powers so that the decree conforms to its true intention, and a transferee pendente lite remains bound by the result of the litigation and cannot defeat a valid foreclosure decree by claiming an independent right of redemption.

---