Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds trial court’s power to correct accidental omissions under Sections 151 and 152 CPC
Case Name: Nirmal Singh v. Satpal Kanwar & Others
Date of Judgment: October 08, 2025
Citation: CR-3902-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Suri
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court’s order allowing correction of a judgment under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that the omission of two additional issues from the judgment was an accidental slip and not a substantive legal defect, thus well within the scope of correction. It reiterated that clerical or typographical omissions may be rectified at any time to reflect the court’s true intention and that such correction does not amount to review or alteration of the judgment’s substance.
Summary: The petitioner (plaintiff before the trial court) challenged the order dated March 17, 2025, by which the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, corrected a prior judgment dated November 14, 2024, to include two inadvertently omitted additional issues framed on July 15, 2023. The petitioner argued that the judgment had been pronounced without being written or signed, that the omitted issues related to allegations of fraud and coercion in multiple sale deeds executed in 1999, and that their non-decision rendered the judgment void. He contended that invoking Sections 151 and 152 CPC to correct such omissions amounted to an impermissible exercise of review jurisdiction.
Justice Vikas Suri examined Sections 151 and 152 CPC and held that while Section 151 preserves the inherent powers of the court, Section 152 explicitly authorizes correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips or omissions in judgments, decrees, or orders. Referring to Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi (2010) 12 SCC 585, L. Janakirama Iyer v. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer AIR 1962 SC 633, and Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag AIR 1967 SC 1440, the Court reaffirmed that such corrections aim to ensure that the court’s record truly reflects its intended decision and that the act of the court should prejudice no party.
The Court found that the correction was confined only to inserting the missing issues (1c and 1d) in the list of issues and did not alter the substantive findings of the judgment. It observed that non-decision of these issues, if material, would be a matter for the appellate court to consider in the pending appeal against the main judgment, not a ground to invalidate the correction order.
Decision: The High Court concluded that the trial court had rightly exercised jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to rectify an accidental omission in its judgment. It found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated March 17, 2025, and dismissed the revision petition. The parties were granted liberty to pursue their appeal on the merits of the main judgment before the first appellate court.