Upgrad LLM

advocate fees


in execution petition, adocate fees rs3250 is added.further intt runs from the date of plaint.

there iwas aleration in advocate repesentation. one who presented the case was not authorised.similarly power of authority of advocate is signed by plaintiff on it.

hence sec 2 and 152 of cpc ,can defendant pray for modication in decree to delete advocate fees and intt onplaint from the date of plaint -as it is not certain who presented the case .in proceeding of court both changed the name  asnd sign .

so pl advice can amenment  in deree be prayed  ?

 
Reply   
 
Lawyer in Hyderabad.wats app no.9989324294

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.

The court can correct an accidental mistake both in the judgment and the decree, but a mere ambiguity is not a ground for correction.

The alterations, amendments or corrections, which S. 152 authorises, are limited by its provisions. They are clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders, and in addition errors arising in judgments, decrees or orders from any accidental slip or omission. Such clerical mistakes or slip orders falling under S. 152, C.P.C. can be corrected even suo motu by the court or on the application of any of the parties.

 
Reply   
 


Advocate

Facts, as posted, lacks clarity.

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Section 152 C.P.C. provides for correction of clerical arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. ... No Court can under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order.

 

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

In a judgment in 

Madras High Court
S.Perumal vs V.Banupriya on 4 January, 2016
CORAM:
							
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

C.R.P.(PD).No.1001 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

 

It can be seen the court observed as below:

 

 Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of remedies provided in respect of the same and the very Court or the tribunal cannot, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier 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 Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party if at all is to file appeal or revision before the higher forum or review application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in respect of such review. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of Code even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. Similar view was expressed by this Court in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho (Emphasis Supplied) There is no quarrel over the proposition laid down in the above decisions.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x