Section 152 CPC limits correction to accidental slips and cannot be used to rewrite disputed sale documents or decrees.

Section 152 CPC is confined to correcting clerical errors, arithmetical mistakes, and accidental slips in a court's own judgment, decree, or order, where the intended description is clear. It cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of intention or to rewrite antecedent transaction documents such as an agreement for sale. Where the alleged mistake is fundamental and would require evidence on what property the parties meant to deal with, rectification lies in a suit under the Specific Relief Act, not by summary correction. Relief may also be refused where inordinate unexplained delay has caused prejudice or third-party rights have intervened.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged misdescription in the agreement for sale and consent decree could be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including by rectifying the underlying deed; (ii) Whether the application was barred by laches.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged misdescription in the agreement for sale and consent decree could be corrected under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including by rectifying the underlying deed.

Analysis: Section 152 permits correction of clerical errors, arithmetical mistakes, and accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders. The power is confined to cases where the intended description is clear and no disputed question as to the parties' intention needs to be resolved. Where the alleged mistake is fundamental and the court would have to decide, on evidence, what property the parties really intended to deal with, the matter falls outside section 152. Such anterior mistakes in the transaction document are ordinarily matters for a suit for rectification under the Specific Relief Act, not for summary correction under section 152 or section 151.

Conclusion: The requested rectification was not permissible under section 152 and was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the application was barred by laches.

Analysis: No fixed limitation governs an application under section 152, but relief may be refused where delay has caused inequity or prejudice, especially if third-party rights have intervened. Here, the decree had remained unworked for many years, surrounding properties and municipal details had changed, and the property had allegedly been dealt with by sale or mortgage. In these circumstances, the delay was inordinate and unexplained.

Conclusion: The application was barred by laches and was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on the merits and on delay, and the consent decree was not altered in these proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies only to clear accidental slips or omissions in the court's own judgment, decree, or order, and cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of intention or to rectify the parties' antecedent transaction documents.

---