- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:254 WP No. 15573 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 15573 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: USHA @ S.PADMA D/O S.SHANKAREGOWDA, W/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HOSAKERE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571419. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY.D.HOSMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: MAHALINGAIAH S/O KADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O HOSAKERE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571419. …RESPONDENT (SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE PRL ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) MADDUR IN FDP NO.36/2000 DTD.18.10.2019 ON IA UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC GRANT. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:254 WP No. 15573 of 2020 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 18.10.2019 in O.S.No.291/1988 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Maddur, (Mahalingaiah Vs. Usha @ S.Padma) (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”). By the Impugned Order, an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as ‘CPC’) seeking a correction/amendment of the final decree passed, filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2 has been dismissed. 2. The learned Trial Court has by the Impugned Order held that the amendments sought for are not clerical or arithmetic mistakes. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent No.2 admits that a final decree was passed by the learned Trial Court on 21.01.2004 and he however submits that the final decree was not in terms of the preliminary judgment and decree dated 24.03.2000 passed in O.S.No.291/88. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:254 WP No. 15573 of 2020 4. This Court has perused the application filed by the petitioner/respondent No.2 under Section 152 of the CPC. The application sets out that the court be pleased to amend the final decree along with the preliminary decree. The affidavit annexed along with the application sets out the details including the subsequent events that have taken place in respect of the suit schedule properties as well as refers to various orders passed. Clearly, the petitioner/respondent No.2 is not seeking corrections of either arithmetical, clerical or typographical, but is seeking a modification of the decree. 5. 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 1(2004) 1 SCC 328 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:254 WP No. 15573 of 2020 judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final 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 inDwaraka Das v. State of M.P.[(1999) 3 SCC 500] and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho [(2001) 4 SCC 181] .” [Emphasis supplied] - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:254 WP No. 15573 of 2020 5.1. A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of K.Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy2 where it has been held that the provision is only applicable to correct an accidental slip, error or omission. It cannot be used to modify a decree as below: “6. Section 152 provides that a clerical or arithmetical mistake 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. The question, therefore, arises is whether omission of pendente lite interest to the decree by the trial court was an accidental or clerical error. In the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. [(1999) 3 SCC 500] it was held that the omission in not granting pendente lite interest could not be held to be an accidental omission or mistake and therefore, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has the power to award pendente lite interest under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision is squarely applicable to the present case. In the present case, neither the arbitrators nor the trial court awarded pendente lite interest to the decree-holder. The executing court also refused to grant pendente lite interest to the decree-holder and the same was upheld by the High Court in the revision petition filed against the order of the executing court. However, the position would be different where the judgment of a court provides for pendente lite interest and the decree omits to mention such interest. Such a mistake could be corrected under Section 152 CPC. The correct position of law is that a decree cannot add or subtract any relief except what has been provided in the judgment. But this is 2(2001) 5 SCC 37 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:254 WP No. 15573 of 2020 not the case here. Mr B. Kanta Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent then relied upon a decision of this Court in L. Janakiramma Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer [AIR 1962 SC 633 : 1962 Supp (1) SCR 206] . In this case, the trial court awarded mesne profit, however, in the decree it was written as net profit. On an application filed by the plaintiff for correction of the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the word “net” was substituted by “mesne”. This was a case of typographical mistake and, therefore, not applicable to the present case. [Emphasis supplied] 6. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.2 submits that a petition challenging a decree is not maintainable before this Court. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is not precluded from filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for redressal of his grievances. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN/YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA