Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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