Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010033882024 2026:GAU-AS:5877 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/73/2024 JURE BALA RAY AND ANR WIFE OF SRIKANTA RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOSSAIGAON P.O. SOUTH BIJNI,P.S. MANIKPUR DISTRICT-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM PIN NO. 783350 VERSUS BHELU BALA RAY AND 16 ORS. WIFE OF SRI JAHESWAR RAY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAYARI BARIPARA P.O AND P.S-BIJNI, DISTRICT -CHIRANG, (BTAD) ASSAM PIN NO. 783390 2:RAMBHABATI RAY (PATHAK). WIFE OF LATE HAREN PATHAK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAHIBARI PS. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN NO. 783392 3:SMTI DALIMI BALA RAY WIFE OF SRI LIP CHARAN BARMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SIMLAGURI (DANGTOL) P.S-DHALIGAON DISTRICT- CHIRANG BTAD PIN NO.783381 4:DEBEN RAY SON OF LATE PANIMAL RAY Page No.# 2/8 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATIPARA P.O AND P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. PIN NO 783392. 5:BIJIT KR. RAY SON OF SRI DEBEN RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATIPARA P.S-MANIKPUR DIST-BONGAIGAON PIN NO. 783392. 6:JYOTSNA CHOUDHURY WIFE OF LATE JITENDRA CHOUDHURY. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DOLAIGAON (MAJPARA) NEAR DOUL MANDIR P.O AND P.S- BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON (ASSAM) PIN NO- 783380. 7:NABANITA CHOUDHURY. DOUGHTER OF LATE JITENDRA CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOLAIGAON (MAJPARA) NEAR DOULMANDIR P.O AND P.S- BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON(ASSAM) PIN NO- 783380. THE RESPONDENT NO. 7 BEING MINOR WILL BE REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER CUM-NATURAL GUARDIAN I.E. THE RESPONDENT NO. 6.IN THIS CASE. 8:MOFAJZAL HOQUE SON OF JOMGSER ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASHBARI NO 4 P.O TILPUKHURI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN NO. 783384 Page No.# 3/8 9:BHODAL ALI SON OF SOMUR UDDIN SK. RESIDENT OF VILL-GOSSAIGAON P.O- DAKSHIN BIJNI DIST- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. PIN NO- 783390. 10:SHORIFUL ISLAM SON OF AKBAR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KASHDOHA P.O-BHANDARA BAZAR DISTRICT - CHIRANG (BTAD) ASSAM. PIN NO 783390. 11:MOYSEN ALI SON OF ONDI SHEIKH RESIDENT OF VILL- GOSSAIGAON 12:KAJUMUDDIN SK SON OF EMESH SK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DANGAIGAON 13:NUR HUSSAIN SK. SON OF JANURUDDIN SK. RESIDENT OF VILL- DANGAIGAON 14:DILOWAR HUSSAIN KHAN SON OF ABDUL NOISE KHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DANGAIGAON 15:MD. SAYEDUR ALI SON OF AFAZUDDIN RESIDENT OFVILL- GOSSAIGAON 16:KHUSHI MOHAN DAS SON OF SRI ASWANI KUMAR DAS RESIDENT OFVILL-GOSSAIGAON Page No.# 4/8 17:ZIOMINI BEGUM DAUGHTER OF HAZARAT ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOSSAIGAON SL. NO-11 TO 17 ARE WITHIN P.O-DAKSHINBIJNI DIST-BONGAIGAON ASSAM. PIN NO- 783390 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DAS, MR S A BARBHUYAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MS R SAHA (R-8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,17), MR. B J MUKHERJEE(R-8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,17) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29.04.2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.04.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bongaigaon (trial court hereinafter), in Title Suit No. 08/2023. 3. It is to be noted that that Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pratibha Singh vs. Shanti Devi Prasad, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 330, has held that when the suit as to immovable property is decreed, but there is defect in description or identification of the property or similar details in the decree, the error can be treated as an inadvertent error not affecting the merit of the case. It can be corrected by the court that passed the decree, under Section 152 of Page No.# 5/8 the CPC or by supplying the omission. It is also held that a decree of competent court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. This principle is applied for correcting the place of execution of a sale deed in the decree, if it is a clerical accidental mistake apparent from the record or mutual understanding of the parties. 4. Same proposition is reiterated in the case of Jayalakshmi Coelho vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 181, wherein it has been held that Section 152 of the CPC covers the genuine accidental slip or omission that do not alters the substantive decision or prejudice the parties. It stressed that the correction must reflect the true intent of the judgment and the parties without re-opening the merit. 5. Again, in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla vs. Sonargon Housing Cooperative Society Limited, reported in (2007) 13 SCC 421, it has been held that a decree can be corrected under Section 152 of the CPC as well as the inherent power under Section 151 of the CPC, even for mistake that originated from the parties that is erroneous description copied in the plaint/decree, provided it does not change the substantive right or caused prejudice. Mis- description or similar error in property related decree can be rectified to give effect to the real controversy. 6. It is to be noted here that the power under Section 152 of the CPC is founded on the legal maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit,” which means that the act of the court shall not prejudice no men. Court must correct their own mistake as accidental slip so that no party suffers due to court’s oversight and these corrections are permissible at any time, even after the decree is drawn up or during execution, but if only error is apparent on the face Page No.# 6/8 of the records or clearly accidental (not requiring fresh appreciation of evidence or merit). 7. In the instant case, vide impugned order dated 29.04.2023, the learned trial court has rejected the petition filed by the counsel of the petitioners, being petition No. 1394/2023, under Section 151 of the CPC, for allowing them to file proper petition in due course of time, who happened to be alien to the Title Suit No. 08/2023. Further, it is to be noted here that a joint petition filed by the plaintiff and defendant, under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the CPC, being petition No. 1324/2023, the learned trial court had allowed to correct the place of jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s Office, that was wrongly mentioned in the plaint as well as in the judgment. 8. Thus, it appears that both the parties consented to file the joint petition, specifying the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s Office, where sale deed was to be executed, is not contrary to what was intended or pleaded. Moreover, both the parties consented to the same and this shows that no prejudice was caused to any of the parties. Further, it appears that no substantive change of the relief granted is made and the error seems to be clerical error leading to judicial error. 9. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srihari (DEAD) Through Legal Representative Ch. Niveditha Reddy vs. Syed Maqdom Shah and Others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 607, submits that after the judgment being passed, the courts becomes functus officio in making any correction except, however, the arithmetical/clerical errors. But, the learned trial court, in the impugned order, had allowed the joint petition, specifying the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar’s Office, where sale deed was to be executed. And this is a serious issue that escaped the consideration of the learned court. And on this court, the impugned order is Page No.# 7/8 being challenged. 9.2. Mr. Das has referred another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of and Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, to contend that the jurisdiction under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even exercised or even exercised suo-moto. 10. Per contra Mr. Mukharjee, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the correction so done was clerical in nature and as such the correction so carried out even after pronouncement of the judgment is permissible under Section 152 and Section 151 CPC, and no material alteration was done. The proposition that judge becomes functus officio after signing of judgment and its pronouncement and it always is subject to power under Section 152 and also of review. He has referred a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others vs. S.N. Goyal, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92. Further, he pointed it out that it done on a petition filed by both the parties. He also pointed it out that the petitioners herein are alien to the suit and also has no locus to file the present petition and on that ground it is also not maintainable. Further, he submits that the petition No. 1394/2023 was filed by the counsel for the petitioners before the learned trial court without being supported by any affidavit and the prayer was to allow them to file proper petition in due course of time, only. Therefore, he has contended to dismiss this petition with costs. 11. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties this court has gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Das. 12. Admittedly, the petitioners herein are not a party in the Title Suit No. 08/2023. Therefore, they cannot be said to be aggrieved person. Though Mr. Page No.# 8/8 Das has relied upon decision in Surya Dev Rai (supra) to contend that any person can approach this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, yet, in the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court did not liberalized non-party challenges, though it had expanded access for aggrieved party. Therefore, this decision would not come into his assistance. An alien cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in a suit or a proceeding. 12.1. Further, it appears that the petition No. 1394/2023 was filed by the counsel for the petitioners before the learned trial court without being supported by any affidavit. 13. Thus, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra), this Court is of the view that the decision of Srihari (supra), would not come into the assistance of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant