The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK I.A. No.38 of 2024 (Arising out of R.F.A. No.67 of 2006) M/s. Magma Leasing Limited …. Petitioner/Appellant -versus- Rageswari Mohanty and another ..... Opposite Parties/Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner/ Appellant -Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate. For Opposite Parties/ Respondents
Legal Reasoning
- Mr. S.R. Patnaik, Advocate. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :12.12.2024 :: Date of Order :18.12.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This is an interlocutory application, which has been filed by the respondent No.1 in a disposed of first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 praying for correction of one letter from her name i.e. from “j” to “g” in the cause title of the judgment and decree passed in that first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 to be read her name as Rageswari Mohanty instead of Rajeswari Mohanty. Page 1 of 7 {{ 2 }} The said first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 was preferred by a company i.e. M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999. In the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999, one company i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. was the defendant No.1. As the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 was decreed against the defendant No.1 i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. and as the assets and liabilities of defendant No.1-company i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. were transferred in favour of M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd., then M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. had preferred an first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 challenging the judgment and decree passed in M.S. No.13 of 1999 against the plaintiff of that suit arraying her (plaintiff) as respondent No.1 and arraying the transferor company i.e. Consortium Finance and Leasing Ltd. as proforma respondent No.2 and also arraying defendant No.2 (Team Finance Co. Private Ltd.) as proforma respondent No.3. 2. 3. Heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 (who was the sole plaintiff in the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999) in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 that, the judgment and decree of the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999 was passed and prepared by the Trial Court indicating her Page 2 of 7 {{ 3 }} name as Rageswari Mohanty in the cause title of the judgment and decree thereof, for which, her name is required to be corrected from Rajeswari Mohanty to Rageswari Mohanty in the cause title of the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, to which, the learned counsel for the appellant of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 objected contending on the basis of its objection that, the cause title of the judgment and decree of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 has already been prepared on the basis of the appeal memo filed by the appellant indicating her name as Rajeswari Mohanty, for which, there is no defect in indicating the name of the respondent No.1 in the judgment and decree of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 as Rajeswari Mohanty and that apart, after passing of the judgment and decree in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, the appellant M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. has already preferred an appeal before the Apex Court, which has been registered as Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No(s).32236/2024 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and in that appeal, the Apex Court has already passed an interim order on dated 13.09.2024 in order to stay the further proceedings of the execution case arising out of the judgment and decree of R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 subject to deposit of Rs.12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lakh) by the appellant M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. before the Registry of this Hon’ble Courts. Page 3 of 7 {{ 4 }} So, according to the appellant in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 i.e. M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd., when the matter is subjudice before the Apex Court having been numbered as Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) Diary No (s).32236/2024, then, in these circumstances, no correction can be made as per law in the cause title of the judgment and decree of the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006. 4. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, in the plaint of the suit vide M.S. No.13 of 1999, the name of the plaintiff was reflected as Rageswari Mohanty. Likewise, in the judgment and decree passed in M.S. No.13 of 1999 by the Trial Court, the name of the plaintiff has also been indicated as Rageswari Mohanty, but not as Rajeswari Mohanty. 5. When, due to the mistaken indication/reflection of the appellant in its appeal memo vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, the name of the respondent No.1 (plaintiff in M.S. No.13 of 1999) has been typed as Rajeswari Mohanty instead of Rageswari Mohanty in the judgment and decree of R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, then at this juncture, it is held that, the typing of name of respondent No.1 in the judgment and decree of first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 as Rajeswari Mohanty instead of Rageswari Mohanty are only the inadvertent typographical mistakes, which has Page 4 of 7 {{ 5 }} occurred (crept in), for no other reason, but only for the fault/mistake of the appellant-M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd. 6. The law on this aspect for correction of the judgment and decree has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) 2003 (2) Apex Court Judgments 606 (S.C.)—State of Punjab Vrs. Darshan Singh—Section 152—Omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 of the CPC, 1908. (ii) 2021(4) Civil Court Cases 067 (Telengana)—Manohar Prasad Navandar, Hyderabad Vrs. Vijay Kumar Joshi, Hyderabad—Section 152—Correction of judgment or decree—An application for correction of judgment or decree can be filed by either D.H. or J.D.—Court has also suo motu power to amend a judgment or decree. (iii) 2017 (1) Civil Court Cases 227 (Kerala)—Chandran Vrs. Amruthavally—CPC, 1908—Section 152—Scope— Applicability of provision is not confined to cases of slip or omission by Court—It definitely takes within its compass the ‘accidental slip or omission’ of parties also. (iv) 36 (1970) C.L.T. 1152—Bhimaraj Onkarmal Firm and another Vrs. Satynarayan Satpathy and others—Mistaken description in cause-title, admittedly inadvertent—The same can be corrected. (v) 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 165 (Punjab & Haryana)— Meena Kumari and another Vrs. General Public & others— Section 152—Correction in judgment—Can be allowed even if error has occurred due to wrong pleadings—It is not necessary first to amend the pleadings. (vi) AIR 1993 (SC) 1408—Hotel Balaji and others Vrs. State of Andhrapradesh and others—To perpetuate an error is no heroism, but to rectify it is the compulsion of judicial conscience. 7. As stated above, when the typing of the name of respondent No.1 in the cause title of the judgment and decree in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 is Page 5 of 7 {{ 6 }} only for the mistake of the appellant-company i.e. M/s. Magma Leasing Ltd., but not for any fault or mistake of the respondent No.1 and when such correction shall cause prejudice to no party and when such correction shall not touch the merit of the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 in any manner and when for making such correction, there is no necessity to change or alter any letter or word in the body of the judgment and decree of R.F.A. No.67 of 2006, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court, it is held that, it is the duty of this Court to rectify/correct the aforesaid minor inadvertent typographical error of a particular letter in the name of respondent No.1 from “j” to “g” in the cause title of the judgment and decree passed in R.F.A. No.67 of 2006. Because, the said corrections shall never cause any prejudice to the parties, rather the same will be in furtherance of rendering substantial justice to them (parties). 8. As per the discussions and observations made above, for the interest of justice, this I.A. for correction of the name of the respondent No.1 from Rajeswari Mohanty to Rageswari Mohanty in the cause title of the judgment and decree of R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 is required to be allowed. Page 6 of 7 {{ 7 }} 9. In result, this I.A. filed by the respondent No.1 is allowed on contest, but without cost. The name of respondent No.1 in the cause title of the judgment and decree passed in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.67 of 2006 be corrected from Rajeswari Mohanty to Rageswari Mohanty.
Decision
10. Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of finally. Utkalika (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2024 15:48:37 Page 7 of 7