High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

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.

 

Similar News