M K PURUSHOTTAM Vs. MAILAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision arise from common judgment and order delivered by the principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bellary, in M. C. Nos. 44/ 94, 21/94 to 26/94 and 57/94 to 68/94. These cases were disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, 19 Petitions had been filed by the Petitioners in those cases under Section 151 and 152 of the code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the compromise decree as well as the compromise Petition with the allegations to the effect that they intend to correct the area of the land in question which was mentioned in the compromise decree as well as in the compromise Petition as 1707. 55 sq. yards, and to substitute figure 707. 55 sq. yards. The objection were filed to these applications on behalf of the opposite parties and it was submitted that the compromise decree being in accordance with the terms of the compromise and being in consonance with the compromise itself, it cannot be said that it was not a case of any arithmetical or typographical error alone, to have crept in the compromise petition and decree in O. S. No. 176/83 to 182/83, 184/83 to 199/83 and 175/ 83 which can be amendable by this Court actirig under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil procedure. The Court below after considering the matter in detail and after quoting the terms of compromise and compromise decree, opined and observed that, "since here in these petitions, Petitioners sought to amend the compromise petition as well as decree and that too when no arithmetical error or any mistake being crept in the decree drawn by this Court as the Court has drew up the decree in consonance of the compromise petition, the application is not maintainable. " with these findings, the trial Court passed the order rejecting the applications,

(2.) I have heard Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. V. Tilgul learned counsel for the Respondents.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the mistake was there in the compromise which resulted in passing of the compromise decree in the description of the area as 1707. 55 sq. yards and which according to the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner should have been only 707. 55 sq. yards. From a perusal of the record it also comes out that the advocates for the parties fixed the price at Rs. 55. 00 per sq. yard.