9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). An unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [ 1965 (12) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the Court which may s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ala for a declaration that the order dated 13.3.1977 passed by the State through the Collector, Patiala removing him from service is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, mala fide, ineffective, inoperative, improper and discriminatory. A further prayer was for a declaration that he was entitled to have his pay fixed in the appropriate scale by counting the period of his alleged forced absence. Averments in the plaint were to the following effect: He was employed as a Senior Compositor in the Government Press, Printing and Stationary Department, Patiala. He was appointed in 1970 and was removed from service by order dated 13.3.1977. He made several representations to the Government and by order dated 14.2.1979 the Government passed an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s past service into account . The respondent-employee filed an application purported to be made under Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) claiming that the afore-quoted directions were not in order and deserve to be deleted. By order dated 3.2.1988 learned Additional District Judge, Patiala deleted the afore-quoted portion on the ground that if the said portion remains, it would have the effect of neutralizing the relief granted to the plaintiff-appellant before it. In the aforesaid manner, the judgment and decree passed on 4.6.1987 in appeal was reviewed. The State filed Second Appeals Nos. 3618/87 and 1472/1988 under Section 100 of the Code before the High Court which by the impugned judgment dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out a new case for interference. The period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963(in short the Limitation Act ) for filing a declaratory suit is 3 years and admittedly a suit was filed after seven years. In any event, there was no scope for amending the order in the manner done in purported exercise of power under Section 152 of the Code. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-employee submitted that the decision in Central Water Transport s case (supra) is clearly applicable in view of the unblemished conduct of the employee. There was scope for applying Section 152 of the Code when the original order did not reflect the true intention of the Court passing the order. We shall first deal with the case relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ier passed except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to review or even said to clothe the Court concerned under the guise of invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the Court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
