S.152 CPC | Court Can Direct Correction Of Wrong Survey Number In Decree If Identity Of Property Is Undisputed: AP High Court

Cautioning against misuse of the jurisdiction, the Court held that although boundaries prevail over survey numbers and extent in identifying immovable property, corrections after a decree must be permitted with due caution.

Refusing to interfere with the trial court's order, Justice Subba Reddy Satti dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the correction of the survey number in a decree for specific performance under Section 152 CPC.

Explaining the legal position, the Court observed:

"The scope of Section 152 CPC vis-à-vis the correction of survey number etc., after the decree was considered nearly a century back, and it was held that the Court had jurisdiction. It was held that Section 152 CPC could apply even to correct the mistakes or errors committed in the plaint, and even in a document on the foot of which the suit was filed.

Thus, a conspectus of the authorities referred to supra, an accidental slip in the description of the property, the mis-description which was not even noticed by the parties throughout the whole course of the proceedings; no dispute regarding the identity of the property, the court can exercise its inherent power of making such corrections as are necessary for the ends of justice, even after the decree is passed in the interests of justice."

The case arose out of a suit for specific performance based on an agreement of sale dated. The suit was decreed in 2010. During execution proceedings, it came to light that while the property boundaries remained the same, the survey number mentioned in the agreement, plaint and decree was Survey No. 175/2 instead of the correct Survey No. 175/5.

The decree-holder initially filed an execution application to correct the survey number, which was dismissed. He thereafter moved an application under Section 152 CPC seeking correction of the survey number in the plaint and decree. The trial court allowed the application, leading to the present revision by the defendant.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the mistake was neither clerical nor arithmetical, as the survey number in the agreement of sale had been consistently mentioned throughout the proceedings.

The respondent submitted that the defendant owned property only in Survey No. 175/5, that the mistake was confined to the survey number, and that the property boundaries had remained unchanged.

Accepting the respondent's contention, the High Court held that the identity of the property was never in dispute as the boundaries remained unchanged. Reiterating that boundaries prevail over survey numbers and extent, it held that Section 152 CPC permits correction of accidental slips or omissions.

The Court, however, cautioned that such power must be exercised with care and only where the material establishes that the mistake was accidental, without altering the identity, extent or nature of the property.

Finding that the mistake had originated in the agreement of sale, continued in the plaint and culminated in the decree, and that it was discovered only during execution proceedings, the High Court held that the trial court had rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 152 CPC. Accordingly, it dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.

Case Title: Kathi Chinna Venkatasubbaiah v. G. Venkata Subba Reddy

Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 1585 of 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Nagendra Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri.