Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010017632026 2026:GAU-AS:2576 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/16/2026 SMTI. AMRITA KAUR @ AMRITA KAUR AGARWAL D/O LATE JAGDEEP SINGH MATHARU, PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF NO. 1 SONARI GAON, NEAR WATER TANK, JORHAT- 785001, ASSAM, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF C/O MR. KAKA SINGH, SANTIPARA, P.O.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS SMTI. HASINA BEGUM AND 3 ORS. D/O LATE SULEMAN ANSARI, R/O CHANDAN NAGAR, BYE LANE-11, JORHAT-785001 2:SMTI. JAHANA BEGUM D/O LATE SULEMAN ANSARI W/O LATE BULU ALI R/O CHANDAN NAGAR BYE LANE-11 JORHAT-785001 3:MD. SALAMAT ALI S/O LATE BULU ALI R/O CHANDAN NAGAR BYE LANE-11 JORHAT-785001 4:DEBENDRA CHANDRA DUTTA S/O GULAP CHANDRA DUTTA R/O SAPEKHATI KOTHIAKHUNDA GAON SIVASAGAR PIN-78569 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DHAR, M. BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 20.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.09.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jorhat (trial court hereinafter), in Title Suit No. 09/2017. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 23.09.2025, the learned trial court had dismissed the Petition No. 2055/2025, preferred by the petitioner herein, for inserting the words ‘coupled with possession’ immediately after the words ‘sale deed’ in page No. 7, second line of the operative portion of the judgment, so as to give full effect to the decree. 4. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 28.02.2018, the learned trial court had decreed the suit ex-parte in favour of the petitioner herein. Referring to the plaint, which is enclosed with the petition, at page No. 19, Mr. Dhar submits that in the second prayer of the plaint it has clearly been prayed ‘for a direction to the defendants to execute the Sale Deed coupled with possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land described in Schedule I and that unless the aforementioned words are inserted in the said judgment and decree, the petitioner herein will not be able to enjoy the fruit of the decree. 4.1. Referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Page No.# 3/5 Limited and Others, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 421 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ellen Engineering Enterprises and Another vs. Auto Tea Company (P.) Limited, reported in (2015) 2 GLR 686, Mr. Dhar submits that by exercising the power under Section 152 of the CPC, the Court can correct its own error in a judgment/decree/order from any accidental slip or omission and under such circumstances, Mr. Dhar has contended to allow this petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2025. 5. Having heard the submission of Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the order dated 23.09.2025 and also the decisions referred by him. 6. It appears that the learned trial court had dismissed the petition on the ground that even if the relief of delivery of possession is not expressly granted in the order portion of the judgment or in the decree, if it is decided in the body of the judgment, then also the said relief could have been inserted in the decree under Section 152 of the CPC. But, in absence of any such discussion/decision, such new relief cannot be inserted by way of correction of decree or judgment. 7. When the aforesaid finding, so recorded by the learned trial court, is examined in the light of the judgments referred by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds sufficient force in his submission. 7.1. Notably, in paragraph Nos. 18 & 19 of the decision in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “18. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to correct its own error in a judgment, Page No.# 4/5 decree or order from any accidental slip or omission. The principle behind the said provision is actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. nobody shall be prejudiced by an act of court. 19. The Code of Civil Procedure recognises the inherent power of the court. It is not only confined to the amendment of the judgment or decree as envisaged under Section 152 of the Code but also inherent power in general. The courts also have duty to see that the records are true and present the correct state of affair. There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the court cannot exercise the said jurisdiction so as to review its judgment. It cannot also exercise its jurisdiction when no mistake or slip occurred in the decree or order. This provision, in our opinion, should, however, not be construed in a pedantic manner. A decree may, therefore, be corrected by the court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such a power of the court is well recognised.” 7.2. Again, in paragraph No. 5 of the decision in the case of Ellen Engineering Enterprises (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:- “5. I laving noticed the facts and considering the materials on record and the powers of this court as envisaged under section 152 of the CPC, this court is of the opinion that a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruit of the decree. An inadvertent error not affecting the merits of the case may be corrected under section 152 of the CPC by the court which passed the decree by supplying the omission and/or making the necessary correction. To be precise, Page No.# 5/5 a decree of a competent court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission, which is squarely the case of the petitioners and which have not suffered any resistance either in the court below or in the proceeding before this court.” 8. In the instant case, having perused the prayer No. 2 of the plaint, it appears that the petitioner herein had made a specific prayer to execute the sale deed coupled with possession in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land described in Schedule I. But, the words ‘coupled with possession’ were not inserted in the judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial court, may be due to accidental slip or omission and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla (supra) and also by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Engineering Enterprises (supra) can be rectified by exercising the power under Section 152 of the CPC, so as to give full effect of the decree and it will cause no prejudice to any party. 9. Thus, this Court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed in the motion stage itself. The matter stands remanded to the learned trial court with the direction to consider the prayer No. 2 made in the plaint and also to pass a fresh order in the Petition No. 2055/2025, keeping in mind the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla (supra) and also by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Engineering Enterprises (supra). JUDGE Comparing Assistant