K B MADAN AND COMPANY Vs. IFFCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application moved by the plaintiff under Sections 152-153-A r/w. Section 151, CPC, praying to correct what the plaintiff labels as an inadvertent error/mistake in the judgment dated 1 3/10/2000. It would be necessary to recapitulate the facts giving rise to the present application in some detail to appreciate and understand the prayer being made and the scope thereof. Reply to the application has been filed. It is opposed as a dilatory tactics to prevent the defendant from executing the decree passed in its favour. Defendant has already filed an execution application and the present application is intended to stall the same.

(2.) Plaintiff filed the present Suit No. 877/ 1997 for possession. Plaintiff did not claim mesne profits, but averred in para 10 that he reserved its right to claim profits. Plaintiff claimed that the tenancy had been terminated earlier on 17/09/1994, and again on 9/08/1995, w.e.f. 3 1/08/1995. Plaintiff had also given the statutory notice on 30/07/1996 as required to be given under the Co-operative Societies Act. The defendants in the written statement denied receipt of the notice. Rather it was contended that the defendant, had exercised its option for renewal of lease. In the event, plaintiff moved an application under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC, registered as IA. No. 1853/1998. The said IA was decided by the learned single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 13-12-2000. The suit for possession was decreed and the operative portion' of the said judgment reads as under:

(3.) The above operative portion contained a typographical error inasmuch as the order mentions that the security deposit was lying with the defendant and it directs the defendant to return by bank draft a sum of Rs. 10,82,400/-. Security deposit was admittedly lying with the plaintiff. An application being IA No. 6865/2002 was moved for correction of error. Vide Order dated 20th August, 2002, learned single Judge recorded the plaintiffs statement that he would place the amount of Rs. 10,82,400/- in this Court. However, the plaintiff desired the Court to consider the aspect of damage to the property which had been revealed only in the month of February, 2002 at the time when possession was handed over in the presence of the Commissioner appointed by the Division Bench. The Court directed the amount of security deposit lying with the plaintiff to be deposited in the Court. Learned counsel for the defendant nevertheless submitted that It was not open for the Court to examine these aspects in a concluded judgment.