RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application purported to be for clarification and/or modification of a judgment and order dated 9th October, 2003 has been filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 6 of the appeal contending that certain factual errors had crept in the said judgment which could not be pointed as they were not present at the hearing of the appeal. Two apparent factual errors have been pointed out at page no. 2 and at page no. 6 of the judgment wherein the date of the consent decree passed in F.A.No. 450 of 1981 has been mentioned as 22.5.1988 instead and in place of 22.5.1998 and the said consent decree was passed by single judge instead of a Division Bench of the High Court.

(2.) IT has further been pointed out that although this Court noticed that the appellant herein was not a party to the first appeal before the High Court but the same had wrongly been considered to be a ground for passing the impugned judgment as they could not have been impleaded. IT has further been urged that the consent decree passed in F.A. No. 450 of 1981 by the High Court having been set aside the same was nonexistent in the eyes of law. The applicants furthermore averred that this Court has wrongly relied upon a stray statement made by the High Court to the effect that "the auction sale was set aside by reason of the judgment dated 21.5.1992 by the High Court inter alia directing that the following remedy be taken recourse to by the applicant".

(3.) MR. P.S. Mishra learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that his client would be satisfied if this Court takes notice of the errors in the pleadings of the appellant as a result whereof the said mistakes have crept in the judgment and thus the applicants (respondent nos. 1 to 6 in the appeal) should be given the liberty to place the correct facts before the High Court. MR. Mishra would contend that such a direction can be issued by this Court in ex debito justitiae. Reliance in this regard, has been place on Samarendra Nath Sinha and Anr. v. Krishna Kumar Nag, B. Shivananda v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and another and Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswaid Joseph Coelho.