MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

An Act of the Court Shall Prejudice No Man: Calcutta High Court Rectifies Clerical Error in Land Measurement in Partition Decree

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court today corrected a clerical error concerning land measurement in a partition suit under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The error which depicted property size as 0.08 decimal instead of the actual 8 decimals led to a substantial misrepresentation in the trial court's decree.

The original suit, led by Smt. Minati Ghosh, claimed a 2/3rd share of a property but incorrectly listed it as 0.08 decimal in size in the suit schedule. This discrepancy arose despite evidence to the contrary, including a purchase deed and a commissioner's report that verified the property size as approximately 8 decimals.

Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee emphasized that Section 152 CPC is intended to correct "accidental omissions and clerical errors" to ensure that court decrees reflect true intentions and factual accuracy. "An act of the court shall prejudice no man," Justice Mukherjee observed, reinforcing the principle that judicial records must accurately represent the facts to prevent any prejudice.

Detailed scrutiny of the case revealed that the error stemmed not from the claimants but from an oversight in the decree documentation process. The High Court found that the error constituted a clerical mistake, necessitating amendment of the judgment to align it with the factual and legal submissions laid out during the trial.

Decision: The court directed the trial court to amend the decree to state the land measurement as 8 decimals, thereby correcting the previously recorded 0.08 decimal. "This correction is not merely clerical but pivotal in ensuring that justice is served in light of the true dimensions of the property involved," stated Justice Mukherjee.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Smt. Minati Ghosh & Ors. vs. Chameli Mondal & Ors.

 

Latest Legal News