Rectification of Court Decree

For rectification you have to file an application under section 151 CPC stating the above facts and seek to modify the decree before the same court which passed the decree.  Missing of plaint is not a serious issue.  With the consent of both the parties involved in the case, the court can restructure its records with the help of the parties involved. 

Thanks. I am only concerned that this has taken almost a year since we reported to our Lawyer and the missing of plaint was quoted as reason for the delay.  Only now after a year or so, the lawyer says that we can file an application based on the copy of the plaint sent to the arbitrator and fix the correction. There is no guarantee as regards the time this will take further.  What is an acceptable reasonable timeframe within which this can be sorted out.

Resp Memebers ,

Please see Judgment ( H S Bhosale) in the similar matter from Bombay High Court .

Thanks

Mahesh

Thanks Mr. Mahesh,  The judgement is quite detailed and seems to be confusing.  Given our case backgroud, should we file an application under CPC 151 or 152?  Basically, in the original plaint, one property had two schedule references (one for land and other for Building).  However, when our lawyer finally drafter the settlement deed, he missed out the schedule reference for one by oversight, as other properties had only one schedule references.  Hence, this is a case of oversight, which we want to correct it and at this point in time, we do not see any sort of resistance or non-cooperation from the other party to the deed of settlement.  Can anyone advise me application under which CPC will be appropriate and fast to clear off?

pl refer Thomas Vs kunjamma    --AIR 2006 KERALA PAGE 40

DEAR RAVINDRANATH

MANISH  HAS GIVEN GOOD JUDGMENT YOU HAVE TO THROUH IT

I would like to quote the latest judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Hansabai Shripati Bhosale Vs. Smt.Parubai Gopal Bhosale (Since deceased) through her LRs.  reported in 2009 (10) LJSOFT 22

The placitum of the same reads as under :

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 _ Section 151, 152, 153 _ Decree _ Wrong description of suit property _ Amendment of plaint _ Rectification of mistake/ error _ Correction of mistakes in judgments _ Powers of Court.
1) Suit for declaration _ Suit was decreed _ Plaintiffs filed application u/s 151 and 152 of CPC for making amendment in the plaint in respect of the description of the suit property which was wrongly described and consequential error which has appeared in the judgment and decree _ Phrase "in any proceeding" has to be given wide meaning to the so as to advance the cause of justice _ Correction is necessary for the ends of justice _ All proceedings in the Court of Civil jurisdiction would fall within the scope of the phrase "in any proceedings in a suit" _ Plaintiff could rightly establish the identity of the suit property _ It is merely a mistake in the survey number of the land and it is not a substitution of the land _ Impugned order allowing the application by holding that the errors are due to accidental slip and it was necessary to correct to meet the ends of justice not liable to be interfered with. (See para 14, 18, 20)
2) Rectification of mistake/ error _ Relief cannot be refused on a technical defect i.e. the correct section is not quoted _ If the power exists under the Code then one can conveniently refer to that power to sustain the order passed by the Trial Court. (See para 6)
3) Suit for declaration _ Wrong description of the suit property _ When the suit is decided then the amendment cannot be carried out in the plaint under order 6 rule 17 of CPC _ Plaint cannot be corrected by moving application of review and the plaint also cannot be amended by invoking powers of the High Court under revision to amend the plaint _ In the absence of any other remedy the plaintiff has no option but to take recourse of sections 151, 152 or 153 of CPC _ If amendment is not allowed then the plaintiff will be without remedy though he has right over the suit property and it will be against the principles of ubi jus ibi remedium. (See para 6, 21)