GANGADEVAMMA Vs. MUDDEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mudde Gowda the respondent was a decree holder in Ex. C. No. 59 of 1971 in the Court of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna. He was allowed to purchase the property which was brought to pale. The sale was held on 7-6-1972 and it was also confirmed on 24-11-1972. There was an application for setting aside the sale bv the petitioner Gangadevamma, the judgment-debtor. The Court refused to set aside the sale. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed, on 19-3-1973. Thereafter, the auction purchaser found certain apparent errors in the Sale Certificate granted to him. He noticed that the property which was hypothecated and brought to sale, though correctly described by its boundaries and also in extent was wrongly mentioned by its survey number. The survey number of the hypothecated property was 140/2. Instead S.No.740/2 was mentioned in the Sale Proclamation and also in the sale certificate. Bv noticing this clerical error he filed an application under Ss.151. and 152 CPC for correction of the S.No.140/2 in place of S.No.740/2 in the Sale Proclamation and also in the Sale Certificate.

(2.) On 1-6-1973 the Court made an order permitting to effect the necessary corrections without, issuing any notice to the judgment-debtor. The Court was of the opinion that the mistake being so quite apparent that there need not be any notice to the judgment-debtor. Aggrieved by the order, the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) There is no doubt that the mistake pointed out by the decree holder auction purchaser is so apparent that one would be tempted to correct it without any further argument or notice to anybody else. But the rules of natural justice require that even in such cases, the opposite party should be notified Without notifying the opposite party, the Court should not have made the necessary corrections. It would have been proper for the lower Court to have corrected that apparent error by notifying the opposite party.