Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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