# Maqsood Ahmad v. Kumari Salma Bano & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 766
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-09
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maqsood-ahmad-v-kumari-salma-bano-ors-51850
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Rectification
of
Typographical Errors - Code of Civil
Procedure,
1908
-
Section
152
-
Amendments of judgements, Decrees or
Orders - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes
in judgments, decrees or orders or errors
arising therein from any accidental slip or
omission may at any time be corrected by
the Court either of its own motion or on
the application of any of the parties - In
case of any type of bonafide error
including typographical error in the order,
same can be rectified at any stage under
the provisions of Section 152 of CPC

(Para 10 -13)

Petitioner challenged an order rectifying a
typographical error in earlier order - application
97(c), initially allowed with costs - was later
rectified to reflect rejection due to typographical
4 All. Maqsood Ahmad Vs. Kumari Salma Bano & Ors.
767
error - Respondents filed application 119(c) for
rectification - claiming error was apparent - trial
court
corrected
typographical
error
under
Section 152 CPC - upheld by Revisional Court -
petitioner contended - acceptance of costs
barred such rectification under the principle of
estoppel - hence petition.(Para - 2,3,4,5)

HELD: - Typographical error in the order was
rightly rectified. Respondents were directed to
refund double the costs imposed earlier. (Para
15,18)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
illegality or infirmity. This Court had
directed the Revisional Court to pass the
order strictly in accordance with law
without
being
influenced
by
the
observations made by this Court in its order
dated 7.8.2023. The Revisional Court has
thus proceeded to decide the revision in
accordance with law.

8. I have heard learned counsels for
the parties and have perused the record.

9. Having heard the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the order dated
7.8.2023 passed by this Court in the earlier
round of litigation, I find that the
Revisional
Court
while
passing
the
impugned order dated 19.12.2023 has
misconstrued and misinterpreted the order
of this Court dated 7.8.2023 and has
completely ignored its mandate. This Court
had set aside the order dated 15.10.2022
passed in SCC Revision No. 240 of 2022
(Ram Kumar Gupta versus Piyush Shukla),
being of the view that admittedly the order
had been passed without deciding the
preliminary objection as raised regarding
the jurisdiction of the Revisional Court to
entertain the revision. The tenor of the
order of this Court was that the objections
regarding
the
maintainability
of
the
revision was required to be addressed first
before proceeding to decide the revision on
merits. This having not been done, the
order suffers from patent illegality and
irregularity.

10. Accordingly, the order dated
19.12.2023 passed by the Addl. District
Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in SCC
Revision No. 240 of 2022 (Raj Kumar
Gupta versus Piyush Shukla) is set aside.
The
petition
stands
allowed.
The
Revisional Court is directed to first decide
the objections of the petitioner regarding
the maintainability of the revision and then
proceed to decide the revision on merits
within a period of three months from the
date of service of certified copy of the
order of this Court.

11. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 766
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No.2912 of 2018 (Civil)

Maqsood Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
Kumari Salma Bano & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi

(A)
Civil
Law
-
Rectification
of
Typographical Errors - Code of Civil
Procedure,
1908
-
Section
152
-
Amendments of judgements, Decrees or
Orders - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes
in judgments, decrees or orders or errors
arising therein from any accidental slip or
omission may at any time be corrected by
the Court either of its own motion or on
the application of any of the parties - In
case of any type of bonafide error
including typographical error in the order,
same can be rectified at any stage under
the provisions of Section 152 of CPC

(Para 10 -13)

Petitioner challenged an order rectifying a
typographical error in earlier order - application
97(c), initially allowed with costs - was later
rectified to reflect rejection due to typographical
4 All. Maqsood Ahmad Vs. Kumari Salma Bano & Ors.
767
error - Respondents filed application 119(c) for
rectification - claiming error was apparent - trial
court
corrected
typographical
error
under
Section 152 CPC - upheld by Revisional Court -
petitioner contended - acceptance of costs
barred such rectification under the principle of
estoppel - hence petition.(Para - 2,3,4,5)

HELD: - Typographical error in the order was
rightly rectified. Respondents were directed to
refund double the costs imposed earlier. (Para
15,18)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Krishan Kumar Khanna Vs International
Society
For
Krishna
Consciousness,
2000
LawSuit (SC) 1371

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for petitioner and Sri

2. Present petition has been filed
seeking following relief:-

"(i) Issue an order or direction
in exercise of power conferred under
Article 227 of the constitution of India
setting aside the order dated 16.03.2017
passed by the court of Small Cause in
Suit of Small Cause No. 17 of 2017 and
order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the
District Judge, Gorakhpur in Revision
No. 26 of 2017."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that earlier petitioner has
moved
an
application
97(c)
dated
07.01.2016 in Small Cause No. 17 of
2017
for
a
direction
to
the
plaintiff/respondents to produce some
evidence in respect of material alteration
in tenanted house.

4. It is next submitted that the said
application was allowed vide order dated
09.12.2016 imposing the cost of Rs. 500/-
to the applicant/defendant and the cost was
also accepted by the plaintiff/respondents.
Later on, plaintiff/respondents have moved
application 119(c) dated 25.02.2017 for
rectification of order dated 09.12.2016. In
the said application, it is stated that from
the perusal of order dated 09.12.2016, it is
apparently clear that Court was inclined to
'reject' the application, but in operative
portion, it has wrongly been typed as
'allowed'.
The
said
application
was
considered by the Court concerned and the
same was allowed vide order dated
16.03.2017 rectifying the typographical
error in the earlier order dated 09.12.2016.

5. He firmly submitted that once an
application is allowed imposing certain
costs and costs is also accepted by the
opposite party, the said order cannot be
challenged and is barred by the principle of
estoppel.

6. He further submitted that petitioner
has challenged the order dated 16.03.2017
by filing Revision No. 26 of 2017, which
was also rejected by the Revisional Court
vide order dated 14.11.2017. In support of
his contention, he has placed reliance upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the matter
of
Krishan
Kumar
Khanna
vs.
International
Society
For
Krishna
Consciousness; 2000 LawSuit(SC) 1371.

7. Per contra, Sri Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi,
learned
counsel
for
respondents submitted that from the perusal
of order dated 09.12.2016, it is very much
clear that since beginning to last, except in
operative portion, Court was inclined to
reject the application. Even in last line
before the operative portion, Court has held
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that application 97(C) is liable to be
rejected on cost, but due to typographical
error in operative part, in place of
'rejection', word 'allowed' has been
mentioned. Therefore, respondents have
filed
application
119(c)
and
Court
concerned vide reasoned order dated
16.03.2017
accepted
that
it
was
typographical error and rectified the same
exercising its power under Section 152 of
CPC, 1908. After considering both the
orders, Revisional Court has also opined
that Court is having power to rectify its
mistake at any stage. He lastly submitted
that there is no illegality in both orders
dated 16.03.2017 & 14.11.2017.

8.

I
have
considered
rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for parties and perused the records as
well as judgment cited above.

9. Controversy before this Court is
as to whether order dated 09.12.2016 is
having typographical error or not and
further Court can rectify the same or not.
To conclude the controversy, it is
required to quote complete order in
question dated 09.12.2016 and the same
is quoted below:-

"09-12-2016

 एस सी सी वाद सिंख्या-17/2009

पत्रावली वास्ते आदेश प्रार्थनापत्र
97ग एविं आपसत्त 111ग हेतु प्रस्तुत हुई। सजस
पर पक्षकारोिं को पूवथ में सुना जा चुका है।

प्रार्थनापत्र 97ग द्वारा सवपक्षी मकसूद
की ओर से इस आशय का प्रस्तुत सकया गया है
सक प्रस्तुत मामले में दौरान तैयारी मुकदमा
पत्रावली के अवलोकन से यह ज्ञात हुआ सक
वादी अपने वादपत्र की िारा-15 में मटेररएल
अल्टरनेसन की बात कहा है अतः इस बात की
सत्यता को न्यायालय के समक्ष लाने के सलए
वादी को सनदेसशत सकया जाय सक वह मकान
सनमाथण से सम्बखन्धत कागजात दाखखल करे।
सजसके सम्बन्ध में आपसत्तकताथ द्वारा अपनी
आपसत्त 111ग प्रस्तुत की गयी और यह कहा
गया
सक
प्रार्थनापत्र
खखलाफ
कानून
व
मैलाफाइड है और प्रस्तुत मामले में दावा िारा-
20 ऐक्ट नम्बर-13, 1972 के तहत सकरायेदारी
समाप्त होने के बाद सकरायेदारी समाप्त करने
के सम्बन्ध में सदये जाने वाले िारा-106 टी पी
एक्ट की नोसटस के पश्चात दाखखल सकया गया है
और वादी का साक्ष् तर्ा सजरह 2014 में समाप्त
होकर प्रसतवादी के साक्ष् के सलए लगा हुआ है
और वह साक्ष् अपना न देते हुए बार बार वाद
की कायथवाही सवलखम्बत करने के उद्देश्य से
त्रुसटपूणथ एविं असवसिक प्रार्थनापत्र प्रस्तुत सकया है
सजसे सनरस्त सकया जाय।

इस सम्बन्ध में सिंगत सवसिक प्राविान
एविं सम्पूणथ पत्रावली का सम्यक पररशीलन सकया
गया। वादी द्वारा सजन आिारोिं पर दावा दाखखल
सकया गया है उसे सासबत करने का भार उस पर
है और प्रसतवादी न्यायालय से यह सनदेश नहीिं
जारी करा सकता सक वादी अमुक साक्ष् प्रस्तुत
करे और ना ही इस सम्बन्ध में कोई सवसिक
प्राविान है क्योिंसक उक्त साक्ष् न तो प्रस्तुत वाद
में ताखत्वक है और ना ही वाद के आिार स्वरूप
है सजससे स्पष्ट है सक प्रसतवादी अपने साक्ष् देने
से बचने के गरज से यह प्रार्थना पत्र मात्र
कायथवाही को सवलखम्बत करने के उद्देश्य से
प्रस्तुत सकया है जो सकसी भी रूप में पोर्णीय
नहीिं है अतः प्रार्थनापत्र 97ग हजे पर सनरस्त सकये
जाने योग्य है।

आदेश

प्रार्थनापत्र 97ग मु. 500/-रू० हजे पर
स्वीकार सकया जाता है। प्रसतवादी को साक्ष् हेतु
4 All. Shiv Ji Agrahari Vs. Smt. Urmila Srivastava. & Anr.
769
एक अखन्तम अवसर सदनािंक 17-01-2017 के
सलए सदया जाता है।

लघुवाद न्यायािीश/सससवल जज सी०सड०"

10. From the perusal of order dated
09.12.2016, it is apparently clear that Court
was inclined to reject the application 97(c),
but due to typographical error in operative
portion, in place of word 'सनरस्त', word,
'स्वीकार' has been typed and while correcting
the same vide order dated 16.03.2017, Court
concerned has held that if there is
typographical error in the order, it can be
rectified under the provisions of Section 152
CPC. Further, after going through the
application 97(c) as well as order dated
09.12.2016, Revisional Court has also held
that at any stage, order may be rectified.

11. Impugned order has been passed
exercising power under Section 152 of CPC.
For ready reference, Section 152 of CPC is
quoted below:-

"Amendment
of
judgments,
decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical
mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or
errors arising therein from any accidental slip
or omission may at any time be corrected by
the Court either of its own motion or on the
application of any of the parties."

12. After going through Section 152 of
CPC, this Court is of the considered view that
in case of any type of bonafide error
including typographical error in the order,
same can be rectified at any stage under the
provisions of Section 152 of CPC.

13. So far as acceptance of cost is
concerned, in present facts of case, that will
not create any estoppel in favour of petitioner
for detailed reasons given in foregoing
paragraph.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judgment of
Krishna Kumar Khanna(Supra) which is
not applicable in the present case as the facts
are entirely different as in that matter,
complete order has been challenged, but here
in this case, only application has been filed
for rectification of typographical error of
order dated 09.12.2016.

15.

Therefore,
under
such
circumstances, this Court is of the firm view
that earlier order dated 09.12.2016 is having
typographical error and same has been rightly
rectified vide order dated 16.03.2017 which
was also affirmed by the Revisional Court
vide its order dated 14.11.2017.

16. Accordingly, writ petition lacks
merit and is dismissed.

17. No order as to costs.

18. Respondents are directed to refund
double amount of cost i.e. Rs. 1,000/- to the
petitioner within two weeks from the date of
this order, which was earlier imposed vide
order dated 09.12.2016.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 769
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters U/A 227 No.3635 of 2024 (Civil)

Shiv Ji Agrahari ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Urmila Srivastava. & Anr.
 ...Respondents