HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.6650 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M. B, RUDRAPPA, S/O SANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O GONIWADA, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 525. 2. M. R. PUTTESHI, S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GONIWADA, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 525. 3. M. R. HALESHI, S/O RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O GONIWADA, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 525. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SAROJA, W/O NAGARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.1086 TARALABALU EXTENSION, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -2- BEHIND MMK PETROL BUNK, DAVANAGERE – 577 005. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT GONIWADA VILLAGE, MATHI (POST), DAVANAGERE – 577 525. 2. NAGARATHNA W/O SHASHIDHARA C., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 1945/B, OPP. TO SHANKAR TEXTILE MILLS, NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE – 577 002 …RESPONDENTS (R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE IN O.S.NO.35/2008 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 152 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DATED 23.03.2021 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-K, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT 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 23.03.2021 in O.S.No.35/2008 passed by the learned I Addl. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -3- Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere (hereinafter referred ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order, an application filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter is referred as “the CPC”) was allowed. 2. None appears for the respondents despite service. 3. Given the pendency of the matter for almost 5 years and the fact that stay of proceedings before the learned Trial Court was granted by this Court on 12.08.2021, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court on 26.02.2011 in O.S.No.35/2008 in terms of which the suit for partition filed by Respondent No.4/Plaintiff was dismissed. The learned counsel submits that once the suit was dismissed, the application for amendment of the decree could not have been allowed. He submits that Section 152 of the CPC is applicable in the cases of typographical or clerical errors and cannot be used for amendment of the decree as has been allowed by the learned Trial Court. Reliance in this behalf is placed on a judgment of a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -4- Co-ordinate Bench of Orissa High Court in Netrananda Dalai vs. Ratnabati Nayak and Another1. 5. A perusal of application filed reflects that Respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs had challenged the judgment dated 26.02.2011 by filing an RFA No.2121/2011 captioned Smt.Saroja W/o Nagarajappa vs. Shri M.B.Rudrappa S/o Sannabasappa (hereinafter referred to as “DB matter”). The appeal was admitted for hearing by the Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a memo with a fresh valuation slip setting out the valuation of the 14th suit schedule property. 6. By its order dated 27.01.2021, the Division Bench of this Court, while accepting a memo and valuation slip filed by the respondent, directed Respondent No.1 and 2 /plaintiff (appellant therein) to file the necessary application before the learned Trial Court for correction of the judgment and decree. The relevant extract of the order dated 27.01.2021 passed in the DB matter is set out below: “Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo accompanied with fresh valuation slip wherein it is 1 2016 SCC OnLine Ori 372 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -5- submitted that the total market value of item Nos. 1 to 14 of plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing the suit was Rs.76,35,000/-. The 1/7th share of the appellant/1st plaintiff comes to Rs. 10,90,714.28 and to treat the same as value of the subject matter of this appeal in terms of Section 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the memo now filed by the appellant cannot be considered unless the judgment and decree impugned is corrected by the Trial Court under Section 152 of CPC. Accordingly, we permit the appellant to file the necessary application before the Trial Court for the correction of the judgment and decree inasmuch as the valuation of the suit schedule properties are concerned. Such application shall be filed by the appellant within a period of two weeks from today. The Trial Court is directed to consider the application to be filed by the appellant and pass appropriate order in accordance with law in an expedite manner.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. In addition, it is clear from a review of the record before the learned Trial Court that the original plaint was amended on 23.06.2010 and this amended plaint dated 23.06.2010, does show fourteen (14) schedule properties. The 14th schedule property as reproduced from the amended plaint is set out below: “14) Site bearing D.No.382/146 measuring 30’x40’ situated at Avaragere division, Davangere and bounded as under: East – Site No.147 West- Site No.145 North- 30’ road South- Site No.141” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -6- 8. The petitioner also has placed on record, a memo as filed by the respondent (appellant in the DB matter) wherein it has been set out that although the suit was filed in respect of fourteen items of suit schedule properties, inadvertently there was no valuation slip in respect of the 14th schedule property and that as on the date of filing of the appeal, the market value of the 14th suit schedule property was Rs.9.6 lacs. It is thus stated that the total value of items 1 to 14 of the suit schedule properties comes to Rs.76,35,000/-. The relevant extract of the memo as filed in the DB matter is set out below: “The appellant in the above appeal is the 1" plaintiff in O.S. No. 35/2008 on the file of 1" Additional Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere. Since the 2 plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, who is none other than the younger sister of the appellant, did not choose to join the appellant in filing the above appeal, she is arrayed as the 6th respondent in the above appeal. The two plaintiffs in O.S. No. 35/2008 filed the suit against the defendants seeking for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share each in respect of 14 items of suit schedule properties. At the time of filing of the above suit the Market Value of item Nos. 1 to 13 of the plaint schedule properties has been reflected in the schedule to the plaint. However, in respect of item No. 14 of the plaint schedule property there is no mention of its market value. In addition to the above in the valuation slip filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint there was an apparent mistake in calculating the total market value of item Nos. 1 to 13 of plaint schedule properties. In fact, the total market value of item Nos. 1 to 13 of the plaint schedule properties as reflected in the schedule to the plaint comes to Rs. 66, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -7- 75,000/-. The market value of item No. 14 of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 800/- per square foot as per the guidelines value. The item No. 14 of the plaint schedule property measures 30 feet x 40 feet totally Measuring 1200 square feet. Consequently, the market value of item No. 14 of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 9,60,000/-. Thus, the total market value of item Nos. I to 14 of the plaint schedule properties comes to Rs. 76,35,000/- and not Rs. 43,01,222.25 as reflected in the valuation slip filed along with the plaint.” [Emphasis supplied] 9. It is pursuant thereto that an order was passed on 27.01.2021 in the DB matter, directing that an application was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Section 152 of the CPC before the learned Trial Court. The respondents/plaintiffs, in the said application, had relied on an order passed by the Division Bench in R.F.A.No.2121/2011 and had explained this in the affidavit annexed to the application in the following manner: “3. 1 state that at the time of filing of the above suit there were only item Nos. 1 to 13 of the plaint schedule properties and the market value of all the 13 items of the plaint schedule properties came to be reflected in the schedule to the plaint. The total market value of Item Nos. 1 to 13 of the plaint schedule properties as on the date of filing of the above suit comes to Rs. 66,75,000/-. Subsequently, the Plaint came to be amended by incorporating one more item of property by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 which came to be allowed by this Hon'ble Court. Consequently, in the Amended plaint Item No.14 came to be incorporated in the schedule to the plaint. However, the market value of item No.14 of the plaint schedule property never HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -8- came to be reflected either in the amended plaint or by filing a fresh valuation slip. 4. I state that the market value of the plaint schedule item No. 14 of the plaint schedule property as per the Guidelines value was Rs. 9,60,000/- as on the date of filing of the above suit. Thus, the total Market Value of item Nos. 1 to 14 of the plaint schedule properties comes to Rs. 76,35,000/-. In the aforesaid regard, there is miscalculation in calculating the market value of item Nos. 1 to 13 of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiffs which has resulted in the same mistake which came to be committed by the office of this Hon'ble Court while drawing up the Decree, wherein the market value of item Nos. 1 to 13 of the plaint schedule properties is reflected as Rs. 43,01,222.25, when in fact it is Rs. 66,75,000/-. If the market value of the item No. 14 of the plaint schedule property at Rs 9,60,000/- is added to Rs. 66,75,000/ the total market value of the plaint schedule item Nos. 1 to 14 comes to Rs. 76,35,000/-.” [Emphasis supplied] 9.1. In addition, the affidavit further stated that a fresh valuation slip has been filed along with the application, the total market value of which comes to ₹76,35,000/-. 10. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Sec.152 of CPC, 1908, which is set out below: “152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.— Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties”. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -9- 10.1 A plain reading of the provision shows that the same is the power exercised by the Court for corrections of arithmetical mistakes or accidental omissions in decrees passed. 11. From an examination of the record, it is clear that the original plaint was amended before the learned Trial Court by the respondent/plaintiff to include not thirteen (13), but fourteen (14) suit schedule properties. At the time of amendment, the 14th schedule property was added in the amended plaint was however a fresh valuation slip was not annexed along with the amended plaint. This anomaly was corrected by the respondent/plaintiff before the Division Bench and based on the order dated 27.01.2021 passed in the DB matter, a fresh valuation slip was filed before the learned Trial Court as well. 12. The Impugned Order thus examined the application filed including the fresh valuation slip which was admittedly filed along with the application before the Trial Court, and on the basis of the fact that the amendment had already been carried out earlier and the fact that the Division Bench of this Court had permitted this amendment, allowed the application filed under Section 152 of the CPC. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5464 WP No. 6650 of 2021 -10- 13. In view of the aforegoing discussions, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Order which would require an interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA