Whether under the Section 153 of C.P.C. - an amendment of plaint and consequential amendment of decree is maintainable because the suit was no longer pending and and that whether the lower court committed error in permitting amendment of the plaint schedule after disposal of the suit. = On a perusal of the provisions of Section 153 of C.P.C., court held that yes. The said provision is wide enough to comprehend any proceeding including the execution proceedings as well.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.4959 of 2011
25-01-2012
M/s. V.I.P. Emporium, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Vinay Purush and another
M/s. TCI Finance Ltd., Secunderabad, Rep. by its duly authorized and
constituted agent Sri Rajendra Falor, Senior Manager (Finance and Accounts)
Counsel for the petitioners:Sri N.Siva Reddy
Counsel for the respondent: Sri S.Niranjan Reddy,
Rep. Sri V.M.M.Chary
Order:
This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated
08-9-2011 in I.A.No.1483 of 2009 in O.S.No.2 of 1998 on the file of the learned
I Additional District Judge, Guntur.
2. I have heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel, instructed by Sri V.M.M.Chary, learned
counsel for the respondent.
3. The petitioners are defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for
recovery of certain amounts on the basis of mortgage. The suit was decreed in
favour of the respondent.
The respondent thereupon filed I.A.No.1483 of 2009 seeking permission to correct
the boundaries of the plaint schedule and consequently to correct the boundaries
of the decree schedule. Even though the petitioners have resisted the
application by filing a counter affidavit, however, having regard to the nature
of the corrections sought for by the respondent, the Court below has allowed the
said application. Assailing the said order, the petitioners have filed the
present civil revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that Section 153
of C.P.C., on which reliance has been placed by the Court below may not, in
strict terms, apply to the case on hand because the suit was no longer pending
and that the Court below has committed a serious error in permitting amendment
of the plaint schedule after disposal of the suit.
5. On a perusal of the provisions of Section 153 of C.P.C.,
I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The said provision is wide enough to comprehend any proceeding including the
execution proceedings as well.
6. Indeed in TILAK RAJ v. BAIKUNTHI DEVI1, the Supreme Court has held that since
the Court exists to dispense justice, any mistake which is found to be clerical
in nature should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested
in the Court for subserving the cause of justice. The Supreme Court placed
reliance on many judicial precedents in this regard in making these
observations.
7. The Court below has held that there is no dispute regarding the identity of
the property and that the amendment was sought only to rectify the mistake
occurred in describing the boundaries of the property in the plaint schedule and
the consequent mistake taken place in drafting the decree.
8. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the order
passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
10. As a sequel to the dismissal of the civil revision petition,
C.R.P.M.P.No.7033 of 2011 is also dismissed.
____________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
25th January, 2012.
|
