1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 20.06.2019 in I.A.No.587 of 2019 in O.S.No.2912 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri G. Sai Prasen, learned counsel representing Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioner and none appeared for the respondent. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit vide OS No.2912 of 2007, seeking to pass a decree ordering specific performance of contract of agreement directing the defendant to execute the registered Sale deed in respect of suit schedule property situated at Plot No.230 in Central Park, Phase-II in Sy.Nos. 218/4 and 218/5 situated at Kondapur Village, Sheerlingampalli, Ranga Reddy District to the extent of 350 Sq. yards, in case of failure to execute, Court may execute the registered sale deed and to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, sub-ordinates from alienating or creating any charges over the schedule property in favour of any third party pending disposal of the suit and also to award costs of the suit.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant remained exparte and as such, the suit was decreed with costs on 26.07.2010. The learned trial Court while decreeing the suit, the issue was framed for consideration that whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance as prayed for. But, finally when the matter has been disposed of, decreed the suit without answering the said issue.

6. The learned trial Court as there being discussion on the same, has granted only a relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on 26.07.2010.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein approached the learned trial Court and filed an application vide IA No.587 of 2017 under Section 152 of CPC r/w. 151 of CPC seeking to amend the Judgment and Decree in OS No.2912 of 2007 dated 26.07.2010 from that the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby decreed with costs and perpetual injunction is granted restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule property.

8. The learned trial Court considering the contentions and entire material placed on record, the order is extracted below:

               Perused the suit record and copy of the judgment and decree filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The present petition under Section 151 of CPC was filed to rectify the judgment and decree passed in OS No.2912 of 2007 dated 26.07.2010 under inherent powers of this Court. As noticed from the record though the suit was filed for specific performance and perpetual injunction, the then presiding Officer of this Court had passed judgment and decree granting injunction without any relief for specific performance. Even it appears from the record that the plaintiff had obtained certified copy of judgment and decree by filing copy application No.13672 of 2010. After lapse of 9 years almost touching a decade, the petitioner at this stage cannot settle the unsettled rights by mere filing this application on the ground that he could not contact the counsel all these years as he got transferred to some other place. So no one can be blamed for their own acts. The petitioner cannot compel the Court for the sake of his convenience to modify the judgment and decree passed by this Court in a routine manner by comparing it to that of an application under Section 152 of CPC which is only meant for correction of clerical and arithmetical mistakes. So the reasons assigned in the petition are not convincing and thus held against the petitioner.

9. Admittedly, the suit was filed seeking the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. However, the learned trial Court, without applying judicial mind, passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. It failed to consider the issues framed and in fact, did not frame any issue with respect to the relief of injunction. Further, the Court neither addressed nor adjudicated the issue relating to specific performance, yet proceeded to grant a relief which was never sought by the plaintiff. This clearly reflects a casual approach on the part of the trial Court in disposing of the suit, particularly by way of an ex parte judgment.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no remedy except to file an application under Sections 152 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is untenable. Section 152 CPC is confined only to correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes arising from omissions. The present case, however, involves a patent error apparent on the face of the record in respect of the judgment, as the trial Court granted a relief beyond the scope of the pleadings without adjudicating the main issue. Therefore, the revision filed under Section 115 CPC is maintainable, as it challenges the legality and propriety of the order passed in the application under Sections 152 and 151 CPC, which sought amendment of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 2912 of 2007 dated 26.07.2010. The error in question goes beyond a mere clerical correction and strikes at the root of the judgment itself.

11. On the face of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in O.S.No.2912 of 2007, it is evident that although an issue was framed as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for, the trial Court failed to frame a necessary and consequential issue regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or creating any charge over the suit schedule property.

12. Despite the suit being one for specific performance of contract coupled with a prayer for perpetual injunction, the trial Court framed only a single issue relating to specific performance and omitted to frame an issue concerning the injunction relief. Furthermore, the trial Court did not properly adjudicate even the issue that was framed.

13. Although the decree was passed ex parte, the errors apparent on the face of the record are two fold:

               (i) failure to frame proper and necessary issues, and

               (ii) granting a relief not sought for and not arising from the pleadings or issues.

               The petitioner, invoking Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sought amendment of the judgment and decree on the ground that such errors ought to be corrected.

14. For the sake of better appreciation Section 152 of CPC is extracted hereunder:

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

               However, the scope of Section 152 is limited. It does not extend to correcting substantive errors such as failure to frame issues, non-consideration of issues, or granting reliefs beyond pleadings. The errors committed by the trial Court in the present case cannot be characterized as clerical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions. They are substantive errors affecting the merits of the case. Such defects can only be corrected by a competent appellate court and not by invoking Sections 151 or 152 of CPC.

15. The Trial Court, while dismissing I.A.No.587 of 2019, rightly noted that the petitioner had obtained the certified copy of the judgment nearly nine years prior and approached the Court after considerable delay. The application under Section 152 was thus filed with significant laches and without availing the appropriate remedy of appeal. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an appeal could not be filed for various reasons, this Court need not examine those aspects in the present revision, which is confined to the question of whether the relief sought falls within the scope of Sections 151 and 152 of CPC.

16. In view of the limited scope of Section 152 of CPC and the nature of the errors involved, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. The petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under law, including seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal by invoking the relevant provision under the Limitation Act.

17. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming by the Order dated 20.06.2019 in I.A.No.587 of 2019 in O.S.No.2912 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.