CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD Vs. JYOTHI TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that falls for consideration in this case is whether in a case of decree passed on concession in terms of the plaint and where portions of the plaint claims are left out in the judgment and decree, an application to supply the deficient parts will amount to a review of the judgment and decree or whether it is only a correction, as contemplated in s. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff bank. In answer to the suit for realisation of money by sale of the schedule properties, the defendants submitted during hearing that they were withdrawing the contentions raised earlier and agreeing for a decree in terms of the plaint. THE suit was accordingly disposed of on 17. 3. 1998 stating as follows: "d1 to D3 filed petition to set aside exparte order. Allowed. D4 is absent. Set ex parte. D1 to D3 filed consent statement. Suit is decreed in terms of plaint. Refund court fee. THE plaintiff is allowed to recover Rupees Two lakhs Ninety three thousand and one hundred with future interest of 22. 25% per annum from date of decree till realisation in default of such deposit plaintiff is allowed to recover the said amount by sale of properties mortgaged and from the defendants and their assets. Refund i/ /- court fee to plaintiff. No costs".

(3.) A perusal of the judgment passed in the case on 17. 3. 1998 shows that the Court found it fit to decree the suit in terms of the plaint. It was, however, observed further in the later portion of the judgment that future interest will beat 22. 25% per annum. There was no reason given in the judgment which justifies the denial of interest at the same rate for the period of pendency of the suit. The last portion of the judgment says that costs are not allowed. It is obvious that the denial of interest for the period of pendency of the suit and denial of costs go against the earlier observation contained in the judgment that the suit was decreed in terms of the plaint.