Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders
Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
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.
Section 152, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-1.pdf 2001-02-28 DATE VERIFIED. CA 3609/1998. Brijesh Kumar/Mohapatra. s.152 is confined to clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips reflecting what the court intended (Dwarakadas); it cannot be used to insert consent-agreement terms that were never prayed for and that the family court never intended to incorporate in the divorce decree. Same-date ROP order-2.pdf skipped.
On this section: s.152 is confined to clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips reflecting what the court intended; it cannot insert consent terms the court never intended to include (Jayalakshmi Coelho).
-
Tilak Raj vs Baikunthi Devi (d) by Lrs
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
1. A clerical or arithmetical mistake in a decree can be corrected under Section 152 CPC at any time, even after considerable delay, if the mistake is bona fide and the party seeking correction was not responsible for the mistake. Courts should prioritize justice over procedural technicalities and should not bind themselves by the shackles of technicalities when correcting genuine mistakes. 2. When land is reconveyed by a government agency after being found surplus, it constitutes a retransfer (Bad Wapsi) and not a purchase. Co-heirs retain equal rights in such reconveyed land regardless of which co-heir makes the payment for reconveyance. The paying co-heir is entitled to reimbursement of half the amount from the other co-heir.
On this section: Provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising from accidental slip or omission. Court held that this provision should be liberally applied to correct bona fide mistakes to advance justice.
-
The Deputy Director Land Acquisition vs Malla Atchinaidu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The core ratio decidendi of this judgment is threefold: (1) Section 152 CPC cannot be invoked to correct substantive findings of fact or to re-adjudicate matters already decided on their merits, even if framed as clerical corrections; any change that requires going behind an adjudicated fact (such as the number of trees on acquired land) is beyond the scope of Section 152 CPC, and such changes must be pursued through appeal, not revision under Section 115 CPC. (2) Where land has been valued with reference to its developmental potential or purpose (such as residential/commercial use), trees standing on that land cannot receive additional separate enhanced valuation; while trees can be awarded salvage/timber value, they cannot be valued independently when land potentiality valuation has already incorporated their presence. (3) In land acquisition disputes, a Single Judge of the High Court should not entertain a revision petition under Section 115 CPC when the same subject matter is already seized by a Division Bench in pending appeals, as this preempts the Division Bench's adjudicatory function and constitutes procedural impropriety.
On this section: Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees; Court held that this section cannot be used to make substantive changes to findings of fact or to reconsider merits already decided; change from 176 to 10,000 trees is substantive adjudication, not clerical error
-
Bijay Kumar Saraogi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 152 CPC can be invoked only for the limited purpose of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in a judgment and cannot be invoked for claiming substantive relief which was not granted under the decree, or as a pretext to review an order which has attained finality. Once a litigant has accepted the award made by a court and not preferred a further appeal, the decree becomes final and cannot be reopened to claim benefits of subsequently enacted amendments through a Section 152 CPC application.
On this section: Appellant invoked this section to claim enhanced compensation; Court held it is limited to correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes, not for claiming substantive relief
-
Ongc LTD vs Modern Construction and CO
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a plaint is returned from a court lacking territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and subsequently presented in a court of competent jurisdiction, the plaint must be treated as a fresh suit not as a continuation of the original suit. Consequently, interest on money decrees accrues from the date of presentation in the competent court, not from the date of original institution in the incompetent court. While Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 permits exclusion of the period spent before the incompetent court for limitation purposes, this exclusion does not apply to interest calculation. Further, a party cannot be permitted to benefit from its own mistake in choosing an incompetent forum, and the executing court cannot go behind the decree by reinterpreting the words thereof.
On this section: Procedure for correction of judgment; noted that appellant did not seek correction of decree showing receipt and registration date of 24.3.1986 instead of earlier date
-
Sarup Singh vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The primary ratio decidendi is that the transitional provision Section 30(2) of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 applies only to awards made by Collector or Reference Court during the period 30 April 1982 to 24 September 1984, and High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to amend final decrees by granting benefits of enhanced solatium and interest to cases where awards were finalized prior to 30 April 1982. Consequently, executing court can and must refuse to execute such void orders at the execution stage. A decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity (non est) and void ab initio, and such defect can be challenged at any stage including execution proceedings. The Court further held that the doctrine of equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegal or wrongful benefits extended to some persons, and the maxim 'two wrongs do not make a right' applies to prevent such claims.
On this section: Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes; Court held this cannot be used to correct omissions on merits or to add new terms to decree after it becomes final
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… No. 2908 of 2022 be read as "As per the details given in the FSA, the mode of transportation is through railway". But this order appears to be in the nature of correcting an error which was clerical in nature and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code") itself provides for such correction under Section 152 thereof, as also Order XII Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules. 16. The third order relied on by Dr. Singhvi was passed on 09.12.2022 in the case of Kalpataru Properties Pvt. Ltd. -vs- Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd . [MA No.2064 of 2022 in Civil Appeal No.7050 of 2022]. The applicant therein had approached …
-
… Mr. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for NSIC supplemented the argument advanced by Mr. Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate submitting that the provision under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is in the light of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Any computation, clerical or typographical error in the award is the effect of an accidental slip or omission, which is the cause. The arbitral tribunal, while passing the final award under Annexure-4, …
-
… Mr. Kumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for NSIC supplemented the argument advanced by Mr. Pattanaik, learned Senior Advocate submitting that the provision under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act is in the light of Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Any computation, clerical or typographical error in the award is the effect of an accidental slip or omission, which is the cause. The arbitral tribunal, while passing the final award under Annexure-4, …
Questions about Section 152
What have the courts held on Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho (28 Feb 2001) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.152 is confined to clerical or arithmetical errors or accidental slips reflecting what the court intended; it cannot insert consent terms the court never intended to include (Jayalakshmi Coelho). Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 152, section 152 CPC, section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 152 application format. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho (28 Feb 2001).
What should I read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 152, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.