Clerical mistake in property description may be corrected under CPC where no real controversy changes and no third-party rights intervene.

A plaint, judgment and decrees may be corrected under the CPC where the property description contains a clear clerical mistake and the amendment does not alter the real matter in controversy. Here, the recorded error wrongly treated the village hadbast number as the khasra number, although the grove was actually situated in the relevant khasra plots. The record did not show any intervening third-party rights that would bar correction. On that basis, the refusal to amend was unjustified, and correction of the plaint, judgment and decrees was held permissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court could amend the plaint, judgment and decrees to correct a description of the mortgaged property under the inherent and corrective powers of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the refusal to do so was justified on the ground that third-party rights might be affected.

Analysis: The description of the mortgaged property in the pleadings and decrees was found to contain a clear clerical mistake, inasmuch as the grove was actually situated in khasra plots Nos. 672/2 and 681/3, while the hadbast number of the village had been wrongly entered as the khasra number. The record did not establish that any third-party rights had in fact intervened so as to bar correction. The provisions empowering correction of accidental mistakes and the exercise of inherent jurisdiction were held applicable where the real matter in controversy was not altered and where the error was plainly one of slip or omission.

Conclusion: The refusal to amend was unjustified, and the revision applicant was entitled to correction of the plaint, judgment and decrees.

---