Intentional Judicial Decision Cannot Be Altered As 'Clerical Error' U/S 151 & 152 CPC; Remedy Lies In Appeal Or Review: Kerala High Court

The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar were delivering a judgment in a civil revision petition arising out of a partition suit.

The revision petition was filed against the order of a Sub Judge which rejected two applications filed by the revision petitioner under Section 151, 152 and 153 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the final judgment and decree to delete the direction for compounding interest of 12% on past and future profits.

For context, Section 151 deals with saving of inherent powers and Section 152 and 153 deals with amendment of judgments, decrees or orders due to clerical or arithmetic errors and general power to amend respectively.

The Sub Judge dismissed the applications holding that the final decree was passed on merits and therefore, was not amenable to correction under the aforesaid provisions. It was also held that an application under those provisions cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, revision, or review.

When the revision petition came up for consideration, two divergent views taken by earlier Single Benches were brought into notice and hence it was considered by the Division bench.

In Velayudhan Nair v Kerala K Y Kuries (P) Ltd. [1987 (2) KLT 449), held that a party party who slept over his rights and allowed a wrong decree to become final by not filing an appeal, revision or review cannot approach the court under S.151 to rectify the wrong on the ground that the case is hard. While, in George v Federal Bank Ltd. [2000 (1) KLT 715], the Court issued directions to correct a decree noting that the grant of interest at a certain rate, would cause serious prejudice to a party.

The Court examined the statutory scheme and precedent governing Sections 151 and 152 CPC. The Court noted that it is a settled principle that Section 152 permits correction only of clerical mistakes, arithmetic errors, or accidental slips or omissions.

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho and Dwarka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 2001 SC 1084], ans emphasised that Section 152 applies only where the decree does not reflect what the court actually intended, not where the court intended what it expressly recorded.

The Court noted that since the award of 12% compound interest was supported by explicit reasons in the judgment, it could not be characterised as accidental or unintended.

The Court further clarified that the powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code are complementary to the powers and not corrective. Reliance was placed on Padam Sen v State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1961 SC 218].

The Court thus held that the decision in George v Federal bank and Velayudan Nair v Kerala K Y Kuries were not in conflict as the observations in both of the cases depends upon the factual context of the cases.

The Court thus upheld the order of the Sub Judge which held that an application under Section 151, 152 or 153 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal, revision, or review when the decree reflects the intention of the Court.

The Court thus dismissed the revision petition.

Case Title: Venkatraman Bhat and Ors v Anantha Bhat and Ors. and connected matter

Case No: CRP 800/ 2001 and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

Counsel for Revision Petitioners: V V Asokan (Sr.), K I Mayankutty Mather (Sr.), Uthara Asokan

Counsel for Respondents: K Shrihari Rao