ORDER
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.
1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of same in respect of the agreement executed by the defendant and the said suit was decreed on 29.1.1986. Pursuant to the sale, the plaintiff applied for execution in E.P. No. 293/1986 and the Executing Court also ordered, execution of the sale deed. The petitioner/plaintiff furnished necessary stamp papers for the execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was also presented before the Sub-Registrar Office at Ambathur by the concerned clerk of the Court on 20.7.1993. At that time, it was found that the survey number furnished was the survey number of the village and the correct survey number is that 204/1C1B4. Thereafter, the plaintiff verified the revenue records and found, what was given in the plaint was only the village survey number and the correct survey number is 204/1C1B4. Immediately, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 and also under Section 15 C.P.C. permitting him to carry out the amendment. The said petition was resisted by the respondent/defendant making general denial as stated in the averments in the affidavit. Ultimately, the petition came to be dismissed on 12.1.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.
2. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
3. It appears that the plaint was filed mentioning the Survey Number as 89 and apart from the survey number; the plaintiff has furnished the measurements of the suit property and also the boundaries. The plaintiff came to know that the survey number furnished in the plaint is not correct only at the time when the sale deed was presented through Court before the Sub-Registrar Office. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner came to know that the survey number furnished in the plaint was the survey number of the village, immediately he has taken steps to amend the plaint.
4. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the suit has already been decreed and nothing survives for amendment. It is also submitted that the amendment petition should have been filed when the suit was pending and such petition is not maintainable after passing of the decree.
5. An application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. which relates to the amendment of pleadings and Order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. states “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.” This Section empowers either party to alter or amend the pleadings at any stage of the suit. Section 151 C.P.C. deals with the inherent powers of the Court which states that “Nothing in this Court shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of just or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” In order to invoke the Section the following ingredients are necessary (1) the orders to be passed is necessary to meet the ends of justice. (2) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
6. Order 6 Rule 17 relates only to the amendment of pleadings. Such an amendment can be made even before the Appellate Court when it is not of such character as to be objectionable either as change the subject matter of the suit or being otherwise being unfair.
7. In the instant case, the amendment sought for is only in respect of the suit survey number. The plaintiff had furnished the measurement of the suit property and also the boundaries. The respondent/defendant has not questioned the correctness of the boundaries and the extent given in the plaint. The only objection that has been taken by the respondent/defendant is that the suit had already been decreed and the same cannot be amended at the time of execution proceedings. It is true that the suit has been decreed and the application to amend the plaint was made at the time of execution proceedings and only at the time it was found out that there is a mistake in survey number, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment. To rectify the mistakes which are necessary in the interest of justice, Inherent powers are intended for exceptional cases and are not intended to enable courts to ignore the provisions of law which govern procedure, nor could all the inherent powers of a Court be used in order to relieve a party from the consequences of his own mistake or to enable him to evade the law of limitation. The Code has reserved of every court under Section 151 the inherent power to make such orders as should be made ex debito justitiae, and every court should have in view, the shortening of litigation preventing duplication of proceedings and saving the parties from harassment and expenses. If it is clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment, decrees or orders but also errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and such correction may be done at any time by the Court either by its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
8. Section 152 and 153 gives general power to the Court to amend which states ” The Court may at anytime and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceedings in a suit; and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question, or issue raised by or depending on such proceedings.”
9. As the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C, the Courts power for amendment are not restricted to errors that have crept in the judgment or decree but extend to errors that have crept in plaint, decree, sale certificate etc. It has been observed in Abdul Kader V. Chinnaswamty Padayachi in para 8 that “Where a property was wrongly described in a plaint in mortgage suit and the mistake is repeated in the preliminary and final decrees, without being noticed either by the parties or by the Court, the Court has ample powers to amend the plaint, decrees and the judgment and correct the mistakes. Under Section 153, the Court has extensive powers to correct mistakes in applications or plaints and it was held that where in a suit on a mortgage the name of the village in which the mortgaged property was situated was mis-described and the mistake is discovered on appeal it is the duty of the appellate Court to allow an amendment of the plaint and thus rectify a clerical mistake.
10. The above said observation would indicate even if the name of the village was wrongly given and the amendment was sought for to correct the name of the village, the Court has ample power to correct the name of the village in order to meet the ends of justice provided it does not change the character of the suit.
11. In A.I.R.1949 Madras 282 (Chaganty Katamraju – Petitioner V. Madavarappu Paripurnanandam -Respondent) The application for amendment is strongly opposed by the defendant on two grounds (1) that there has been very long delay and (2) that the court is not competent to grant this application for amendment of the plaint schedule after disposal of the suit. The Court has held as follows: As regards the first objection, undoubtedly there has been delay, if by delay is meant the time which has elapsed since the institution of the suit, but as I have already mentioned, this mistake evidently escaped the attention of parties till very recently. There is, therefore, no avoidable delay shown that on account of this delay circumstances have intervened which would make it inequitable to grant the application. It is difficult to follow the other objection. What is now sought in this application is not an amendment of the pleadings as such; it is really an application to correct an error which has crept also into the decrees. The wide language of Sections 152 and 153, Civil P.C., would, in my opinion, covers a case like the correction of an error need not always amount to an amendment of a pleading. I do not think it correct to treat this application as an application under Order 6, Rule 17. The passage cited from Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol.26 at p.56 was also referred to wherein it was stated that ” An amendment may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even after trial but not after judgment, except on appeal” evidently refers to a material and substantial amendment of the pleading. At Page 57 occurs the following statement of law which is in terms identical with Sections 152 and 153, Civil P.C.”The Court or a Judge may at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be thought just, amend any defect or error in any proceedings… The Court or a Judge may also at any time correct clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising, therein from accidental omissions” and holding so allowed the application.
12. The facts set forth in the Judgement referred above are squarely applicable to the case on hand also. This Court relying upon (R. SRINIVASAN VS. M. THAMBUSAMY) has been observed as follows: ” Where an application is filed for correction of an error as regards the survey numbers of an item of property in the plaint schedule and the decree schedule and there is no dispute as regards the identity of the property or boundaries to it, the amendment maybe allowed under S. 152. The fact that the assignment deed of the property also has the same errors cannot disentitle the applicants to have the errors set right if they are entitled to it under the Code. So also, the amendment cannot be refused on the ground that the decree sought to be amended is barred by limitation”.
13. After following the above said Judgement, this Court hold that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property. The defendant has raised only an objection with regard to the measurement and extent. The learned District Munsif has failed to see this aspect of the matter. Likewise, the Court below has failed to give effect to its own finding that the defendant has not disputed the identity of the property and has not stated that the survey number given in the plaint is wrong. The finding of the Court below that Section 152 C.P.C. cannot be invoked to correct the survey number of the property and that section 152 can be invoked only to correct clerical errors or arithmetical errors in the judgments and decrees, in my opinion, is erroneous. Likewise the other reasoning given by the Court below that any kind of correction can be carried out only before the decree is passed is also not correct.
14. In our case also, the only contention that have been raised by the respondent/defendant for the amendment has been filed only after passing of the decree and in view of the ruling referred to above, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the revision petitioner for amendment to amend the survey number in decree should have been allowed by the Court below and the reasoning given by the Court below in refusing the amendment is not proper especially when the said mistake came to be noticed only when the sale deed was presented for registration in Sub-Registrar office. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing malafide on the part of the plaintiff and he cannot at all be deprived of the fruits of the decree on a technical reason by refusing the amendment.
15. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 12.1.1996 made in I.A.No. 2517 of 1993 in O.S.No. 554 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. No costs.