JUDGMENT
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Plaintiffs suit No. 255 of 1991 titled M/S. Sanghi Enterprises v. Sh. S.M. Khan, Property Dealer and another was decreed against the defendants by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh vide his order dated 16.3.1995 and decree was drawn.
2. Plaintiff made application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment/rectification of the decree. It was alleged in this application that decree had been passed by the Court in view of compromise between the parties. As per statement dated 16.3.1995 made by Sh. S.M. Khan-defendant, interest was payable with effect from 19.9.1990 till realisation and the judgment was passed in the presence of the parties and their counsels/O.P. Ahluwalia and H.S. Awasthi which reads as follows:-
“Present parties with Advocate O.P. Ahluwalia and H.S. Awasthi. Parties have affected a compromise. Their statements to the said effect have been recorded. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as compromised to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith proportionate costs of the suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover interest @ 12% p.a. on the decretal amount from 19.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount. The plaintiff has received Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant today. The defendant will pay back the remaining amount in instalments of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Every instalment is payable by 7th of every month. In case of any default in payment of any instalment, the balance amount shall be payable in lump sum. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record room.”
3. It was alleged in the application that while drawing the decree the words “with effect from 19.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount were omitted.” It was further alleged that as the decree was drawn plaintiff is entitled to interest on the decretal amount for the period till 16.3.1995. Decree should have been drawn in accordance with the judgment. If the decree does not conduce to the judgment, the remedy is its correction/rectification under Section 152 CPC so that it conduces to the judgment.
4. Defendants – JDs opposed this application alleging that it is a compromise decree and the judgment and decree proceeded on the terms agreed between the parties. Decree cannot be corrected so as to add any further liability on the JD.
5. Vide order dated 26.10.1999, this prayer of the plaintiff-DH was declined by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh.
6. “Decree” as defined in Section 2(2) CPC means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include-
(a) – any adjudication from which as appeal lies as an appeal from an order,or
(b) – any order or dismissal for default.”
“Judgment” as defined in Section 2(9) CPC means “the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order.”
It is thus clear that the decree follows the judgment. Any adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit is a “decree” within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC.
Decree drawn by the Court has to be in conformity to the adjudication of the matters in controversy between the parties.
7. In this case, the aforesaid judgment was passed by the Court in terms of the compromise between the parties. Compromise was evidenced by the statements of the parties. In the judgment passed by the Court on compromise, plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith proportionate costs of the suit. Plaintiff was also held entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the decretal amount with effect from 19.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount. Decree was required to conduce to this judgment.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner/DH submitted that he was satisfied when the aforesaid judgment was announced to the parties in the presence of their respective advocates, allowing interest to the plaintiff on the decretal amount at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 19.9.1990 till realisation. He submitted that he was not concerned with the drawing of decree because the drawing of the decree is a ministerial act and it is normally taken that the decree will be drawn in accordance with the judgment. He submitted that when the plaintiff got certified copy of the decree, he felt shocked and surprised to find that the decree did not conduce to the judgment and, therefore, he filed application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rectification/amendment of the decree. He submitted that Court should have allowed rectification/amendment of the decree so that it conduced to the judgment. He submitted that it was through inadvertence that there was omission of the words “from 19.9.1990 till realisation” in the decree. It is to correct such inadvertent mistakes that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was enacted by the Legislature.
Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-
“Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders-
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental ship or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.”
9. Section 152 is based on two principles that act of the Court should not prejudice any party and that the Courts have the duty to see that the records are true and present correct state of affairs. Every Court has inherent power to vary or amend its own decree or order so as to carry out its own meaning. In so doing it does nothing but exercises a power to correct a mistake of its ministerial officer by whom the decree or order was drawn up. It only insists that the “decree” drawn up in the office of the Court correctly expresses the judgment given by the Court. The basis of this power is the principle that no party shall suffer any detriment on account of mistake or error committed by the adjudicating authority.
10. There is no doubt that the decree of the Court is required to conform to the judgment. In this case, the decree does not conform to the judgment. In the decree there is omission of the words “from 19.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount”. In this case the basis of the judgment is the statements of the parties In the statement of the defendant-Sh. S.M. Khan, there is no mention of the words “from 19.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount”. It was a compromise decree and not a decree on merits. Judgment/decree owed its existence to the statements of the parties. Since the words from 19.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount are missing in the statements of the parties, it has to be held that the judgment does not conduce to the statements of the parties. Decree conduces to the statements of the parties. As the decree conduces to the statements of the parties, decree could not be made to conform to the judgment, which could have been outside the jurisdiction of the Court if it ordered that the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 12% per ammun on the decretal amount from 21.9.1990 till realisation of the decretal amount. In the statement of Sh. S.M. Khan there is no mention regarding payment of interest from 19.9.1990 till realisation. Defendant-JD was not required to apply for the correction of judgment when the decree to be executed had been drawn in accordance with the compromise/statements of the parties.
11. Impugned order has done justice to the parties. I find no ground to interfere. Dismissed, Courts are, however, advised to obtain compromise in writing from the parties before they record their statements, so that statements of the parties made before the Court conduce to the compromise and the compromise conduces to these statements and judgment and decree conduce to that compromise. Copy of this judgment be circulated among all the judicial officers posted in the State of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh for strict compliance in future.
