Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32332 (BOM)

RAMA LOKA RATHOD AND ANOTHER v. NAJUBAI POMA RATHOD AND OTHERS

WP/13212/2024 · 2025-01-07

Shri R M Joshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

914-WP-13212-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13212 OF 2024 Rama Loka Rathod And Another VERSUS Najubai Poma Rathod And Others *** • Mr. P. R. Nangare, Advocate for the Petitioners *** CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : JANUARY 07, 2025 PER COURT : 1. This Petition takes exception to order dated 14.08.2024 passed in MCA No. 3/2018 whereby the Trial Court has permitted the correction in the operative part of the judgment dated 28.09.2007 passed in RCS No. 63/1995. 2. Petitioner is original Defendant in RCS No. 65/1995 which came to be filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court with following operative part: 1- oknhpk nkok va’krk eatwj dj.;kr vkyk vkgs- 2- oknhok nkok feGdr xV ua- 19@[k] xV ua- 26@[k] 29@[k] 38@[k] 20@[k] 27@[k] 2@40 [k vkf.k ?kj dz- 64] 70 ekS- Umesh PAGE 1 OF 4 2025:BHC-AUG:770 914-WP-13212-2024.odt jkyxk] rk- vgeniwj o xV dz- 280 fuokl] rk- ikyx e/;s 1@10 fgLlk vkgs- 3- oknhpk nkok feGdr lu 15@1] 15@2 uohu xV ua- 25@[k] o l-ua- 9 uohu xV dz- 421@[k] e/;s fgLlk jgk.kkj ugh- ,l<;k iwjr nkok [kkjht >kyk- 4- nkok feGdr ‘ksrhph izR;{k okV.kh ftYgkf/kdkjh fdaok laca/khr vf/kdk&;kps dye 54 fnok.kh lafgrsuqlkj djkoh- 5- ?kjkph izR;{k okV.kh U;k;ky;kus fu;qDr dsysY;k dksVZ dfe’kuj ekQZr gksbZy- 6- uqdlku HkjikbZ (esUl ikzQhV) fuf’pr dj.ksph pkSd’kh vkns’k&22 fu;e 12 fnok.kh lafgrsuqlkj osxG;k izdkjs djkos rks dkyko/kh nkok nk[ky dsY;kiklwu rs tehuhpk izR;{k dCtk feGsi;Zar jkghy- 7- nksUgh i{kkus vkivkiyk [kpZ lgu djkok- 8- izkFkfed gqdweukek ojhyizek.ks ikfjr dj.;kr vkys vkgs- 3. The Plaintiff filed RCA bearing No. 1/2014 challenging the clause no. 3 of the operative part of the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. This appeal came to be dismissed as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. It is thereafter an application came to be filed bearing CMA No. 3/2018 for seeking correction in the judgment and decree passed on 28.09.2007. This application is allowed. Hence, present Petition. Umesh PAGE 2 OF 4 914-WP-13212-2024.odt 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was not open for the Plaintiff to apply for correction of the decree after lapse of 10 years and more particularly, when the Appeal was sought to be filed by the Plaintiff against the said judgment is dismissed. He also submits that the execution proceedings are disposed of. 5. The question arises before this Court as to whether there is inadvertent error in not including Gut No. 18 in operative part of the judgment and it could be corrected. It is pertinent to note that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court clearly indicates that Trial Court has specifically mentioned properties in clause no. 2 of the operative part wherein 1/10th share is granted to the Plaintiff. In clause no. 3, there is mention of the properties in respect of which suit is dismissed. It is thus clear that rejection of the claim of the Plaintiff was only to the extent of properties mentioned in clause no. 3. Apart from this, perusal of the body of the judgment indicate that the Trial Court did not intend to deny the relief to the Plaintiff in respect of Gut No. 18. Umesh PAGE 3 OF 4 914-WP-13212-2024.odt 6. Once it is found that there is clerical mistake, in view of power under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, it is open for the Court to correct the same. The said provision does not provide for any specific stage/time at which such error can be corrected. Merely because the application for condonation of delay filed along with First Appeal challenging judgment and decree was dismissed, the powers of Trial Court to correct inadvertent clerical mistake is not taken away. Such correction can be done by the Court, which has passed the said order, on the same comes to the notice of Court. 7. Having regard to above facts, this Court finds no reason to cause interference in the impugned order for want of any perversity therein. In the result, Petition stands dismissed. (R.M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh PAGE 4 OF 4