- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5THDAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 4490 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. Y.ANIRUDHA RAO ALIAS ANANTHARAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO, RESIDING AT 11/2, DR. SUBRAYA NAGAR, 2NDSTREET,KODAMBAKAM, CHENNAI-600 024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S.RATHNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, 2. SMT. S. GEETHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, 3. SMT. SHANTHI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, D/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, 4. S. RAVI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRINIVASA RAO, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT C/O. GOPALAKRISHNA ADIGA HOUSE, YERMAL BADA VILLAGE, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 POST YERMAL, BEHIND PETROL BUNK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 119. …RESPONDENTS (SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI AND FDP NO.5/2016 DTD 16.12.2017 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND RECTIFY THE MISTAKE OCCURED IN THE SKETCH AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 16.12.2017 in FDP No.5/2016 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner under Sections 151 and 152 of CPC, 1908 to amend the final decree has been rejected. 2. By an order dated 16.03.2018, this Court had issued a limited emergent notice to the respondents based on the petitioner’s contention that there may be an inadvertent error - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 in the shading on the sketch map which is annexed along with the decree sheet. 3. None appears for the respondents. Although respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are served on 02.04.2018 and 03.04.2018 respectively, they have remained absent. The notice issued to respondent No.3 has been returned on 28.03.2018 with the postal shara ‘refused’, thus respondent No.3 is deemed to have been served as well. 4. Given the pendency of this matter for the last almost seven years and the limited notice issued, this Court deems it expedient to hear and decide the matter. 5. The learned Trial Court, after examining the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC, came to the conclusion that once a final decree is drawn and executed by the parties, it cannot be amended or revised in the manner as is sought for by the Petitioner. Thus the Application was dismissed 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a final decree has been passed by the learned Trial Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 However, his only contention is that the shading shown in the map annexed to the decree is incorrect. 7. An examination of the Application filed however shows that it is not merely a shading error that is sought to be revised but the portions qua which the decree has been passed are sought to be amended. Thus it is not for the correction of an arithmetic, clerical or typographical error that is sought to be corrected, but a modification of the decree has been sought. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of the application below: “Application under Sections 151 & 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner above named prays that the court may be pleased to amend the final decree as prayed hereunder and to grant such other and further reliefs as the court may deem fit to grant. “The proposed Amendment In Page 4 Para 2 of the final decree, delete “and Schedule I and II as marked in yellow colour in respective sketches and add the following: “S.No.36/10 II measuring 29 cents shown in red colour, marked as B Schedule, S.No.36/12B1 II measuring 22.50 cents shown in yellow colour marked as B schedule in 1st sketch and S.No.39/12 I measuring 4.50 cents shown in yellow colour in 2nd sketch is allotted to the share of the petitioner” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 In page 4 para 3 of the final decree, “and delete schedule I and II as marked in red colour in the respective sketches” and add the following: “S.No.36/10 measuring 29 cents shown ion yellow colour marked as ‘A’ schedule, S.No.36/12B11 measuring 22.50 cents shown in red colour marked as schedule A in the first sketch and S.No.39/12 II measuring 4.50 cents shown in red colour in 2nd sketch is allotted to the share of respondents 1 to 4” [Emphasis supplied] 8. Once a final decree has been passed, the said decree can neither be amended nor revised, and the only remedy available to a party is to challenge the decree under the appropriate provisions of law. It is settled law that final decree cannot be modified or amended unless a challenge is made before the Appellate Court or a review petition is filed before the Court passing the decree. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh1 has held as under: “12. Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final 1(2004) 1 SCC 328 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the tribunal cannot and, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party, if at all, is to file an appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P.[(1999) 3 SCC 500] and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho [(2001) 4 SCC 181] .” [Emphasis supplied] 9. In view thereof, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order which would require interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. This dismissal however shall not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:143 WP No. 4490 of 2018 preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances. 10. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA