Section 151 CPC | Bombay High Court Allows Correction In Sale Deed After 38 Yrs

Observing that the Court’s powers under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are to rectify errors and do substantial justice, the Bombay High Court allowed correction in a sale deed after thirty-eight years.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to apply the law in a meaningful manner to meet the ends of justice, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh back then at the Aurangabad bench observed.

The court was hearing a plea to quash a 2020 order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division whereby the petitioner’s application u/s 152 of the CPC to correct a sale deed executed pursuant to a decree was rejected on the grounds of limitation.

The petitioners couldn’t enjoy the fruits of their decree from 1979 due to a wrong ‘gut no.’ mentioned in the execution application in 1982, the court noted.

Facts

The petitioner’s ancestors had mortgaged their land to in lieu of a loan. Despite repaying the loan amount the mortgaged land parcel wasn’t returned for which the petitioner approached the HC and obtained a decree in 1979. When the defendants refused to hand over the premises, an application was filed to execute the decree. The decree was finally executed in the form of a sale deed in 1985.

However, in 1998 the original petitioner’s children realised the ‘gut no.’ in the sale deed was incorrect, when they tried adding their names in the revenue records. An application filed in 1999 under section 152 of the CrPC had to be withdrawn in 2006 and a fresh plea was filed in 2009 under Section 151 of the CPC seeking a correction in the ‘gut no.’ It was rejected in 2020 citing the Limitation Act.

Section 151 deals with inherent powers of the court. The petitioner submitted that a separate case could not be filed in the present scenario and his only remedy was a plea under section 151 of the CPC.

Advocate Shantanu Deshpande for the petitioners relied on judgements Hansabai Shripati Bhosale Vs. Parubai Gopal Bhosale since deceased through her legal heirs Tanaji Gopal Bhosale and Others, reported in 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 500 and Ratnakar Bank Ltd., Kolhapur Vs. Usha Rajaram Nimbalkar, reported in 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 524.

Observations

The High Court observed that the entire chain of circumstances was before the Civil judge who ordered against allowing the change. Moreover, “it needs to be noted that the powers exercised under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure are for the purpose of rectifying the errors and are meant to advance real and substantial justice to the parties.”

“In my opinion, in a case of correction in the gut numbers, hyper technical view has been adopted by the Executing Court. The reasons for the delay is clearly set out in the application and is delay is sufficiently explained,” the court said in its order and allowed the petition.

Click Here To Read/Download Order