Final insolvency determinations cannot be reopened later, and clerical amendment powers do not cure a party's own substantive mistake.

A finally determined insolvency order fixing the amount of debt could not be reopened by a later application once review had been refused and the Court had become functus officio. The Court held that a fresh request to alter the settled debt was not maintainable because the earlier adjudication was final on the merits. It also held that the clerical amendment power under the provision corresponding to Section 152 CPC was unavailable, since the alleged error was not a misrecording by the Court but a substantive mistake attributable to the creditor. The settled amount therefore could not be altered through amendment, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Insolvency Court could entertain a fresh application to alter the amount of the debt after the earlier order had become final; (ii) whether the alleged mistake could be corrected under the provision corresponding to clerical amendment in the Civil Procedure Code.

Issue (i): whether the Insolvency Court could entertain a fresh application to alter the amount of the debt after the earlier order had become final.

Analysis: The amount of the debt had already been the subject of a formal order on the creditor's own sworn statement. That order had been reviewed and the review had been rejected, leaving no further remedy for correction of any alleged error. The earlier adjudication was treated as final on the merits, and the Court held that the same matter could not be reopened before the same Court on a later application. The Court also held that, in relation to the insolvency provision invoked, the Court was functus officio and had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter again.

Conclusion: The fresh application was not maintainable and was properly rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged mistake could be corrected under the provision corresponding to clerical amendment in the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The Court held that the alleged error was not a clerical error in the Court's order, but an error of the creditor himself. The amendment provision was confined to correcting clerical mistakes in orders or decrees which do not correctly record what the Court decided. Since the prior order had itself determined the amount and did not merely misrecord the Court's decision, the case did not fall within the amendment power.

Conclusion: Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The creditor had no available remedy to reopen or alter the settled amount of the debt, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A matter finally decided by an insolvency court cannot be reopened by a subsequent application, and the power to amend clerical errors extends only to mistakes in recording the Court's own decision, not to substantive errors of a party.

---