Typo Can’t Sink Justice: Supreme Court Says Clerical Mistakes in Court Orders Must Not Be Used to Defeat Substantive Rights

“Court’s Inadvertent Error Cannot Be Weaponised by Litigants” – Apex Court Corrects Typographical Mistake That Led to Erroneous Deletion of Party. In a remarkable reaffirmation of substance over form, the Supreme Court of India on January 12, 2026, set aside a High Court order that dismissed an appeal on the basis of a clerical mistake, holding that “a typographical error in a judicial order cannot be allowed to destroy the legal standing of a party or terminate proceedings prematurely.”

The Court delivered this verdict in Kishorilal (D) Through LRs & Others v. Gopal & Others, where a mistaken deletion of a deceased appellant from the record led the High Court to erroneously conclude that the appeal had abated.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan found that the error arose in a 2011 order, which inadvertently ordered deletion of Kishorilal, the original appellant, even though he had died six years earlier in 2005 and his legal heirs had already been brought on record. The actual application was for deletion of Murarilal, one of Kishorilal’s substituted legal heirs, who had died in 2007.

“It is necessary to note that on the date when order dated 09.05.2011 was passed, Kishorilal was already dead and stood substituted by his four legal heirs including Murarilal,” observed the Court.
“Thus, it is clear that the direction to delete Kishorilal from the array of parties was nothing but a typographical mistake.”

“Law Must Correct the Record, Not Penalise the Innocent” – Clerical Error Is No Ground for Abatement

The Court invoked Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which vest the courts with inherent and corrective powers to amend errors apparent on the face of the record. It firmly held that a party cannot be penalised for a court’s inadvertent mistake, especially one that is self-evidently erroneous.

“Such a mistake could be corrected at any stage in exercise of powers under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC. Therefore, the plaintiff-respondent cannot take advantage of the aforesaid mistake,” the Court ruled.

The Supreme Court criticised the High Court for failing to rectify what was clearly a drafting lapse, instead relying on that very error to hold that the appeal had abated.

“The error was not of the appellants, but of the court’s own recording. The order misstates the party to be deleted, and that cannot be a legal ground to deny adjudication on merits,” said the bench, calling for a justice-oriented approach over a mechanical one.

“Substance Must Prevail Over Form” – Clerical Slip Does Not Terminate Judicial Proceedings

The Court made it clear that procedural lapses resulting from typographical errors cannot override legal rights, especially in cases involving substantial representation of the deceased’s estate and multiple linked appeals. It called the High Court’s refusal to correct the error an abdication of judicial responsibility.

“Such mistakes are not merely semantic; they have procedural consequences. But courts must correct the record and not allow justice to be lost in clerical formalism,” the Court observed.

It also rejected the respondent’s attempt to use the mistaken deletion to block revival of the appeal, stating:

“The plaintiff-respondent cannot take advantage of the court’s inadvertent error.”

Typo Rectified, Appeals Restored

Finding that the High Court’s abatement order rested squarely on a typographical error, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appeals, restored them to file, and directed the High Court to hear the matter on merits.

“We are… of the considered view that the appeal had not abated… The direction in the order dated 09.05.2011 to delete appellant No.1 was a pure clerical/typographical error,” the Court concluded.

The ruling not only revives the appeal but sends a resounding reminder that clerical oversight must never be elevated above the ends of justice.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2026