Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits correction only of clerical, arithmetical, or accidental slips and omissions, or whether it can be used to modify, alter, or add to the substantive terms of an earlier judgment or decree.
Analysis: Section 152 is confined to correcting ministerial mistakes of the Court, such as clerical or arithmetical errors and accidental slips or omissions. It does not authorise the Court to revisit the merits, change its earlier decision on a mere change of view, or introduce a substantive direction that was not part of the original adjudication. The provision is distinct from review jurisdiction and cannot be used to make an intentional omission good, even if the omission is alleged to be erroneous. The limited power exists to ensure that an unintentional mistake of the Court does not prejudice a party, in keeping with the principle that an act of Court should prejudice no one.
Conclusion: Section 152 could not be invoked to delete or alter a substantive direction in a manner that effectively changed the original appellate decree. The correction ordered by the first appellate court was beyond the scope of Section 152 and was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 152 is limited to correcting clerical, arithmetical, and accidental errors, and cannot be used to vary the substantive terms of a judgment or decree or to effect a review under another name.