STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder bank is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The application filed by the petitioner bank under S.151 and 152 C. P. C. seeking amendment of the decree for sale of the mortgaged properties, the petitioner bank has obtained against the respondents, stands dismissed by the order under challenge.

(3.) According to the counsel representing the bank a composite decree ought to have been passed in view of the provisions contained in R.3 of O.34 as amended by the High Court. However, only a preliminary decree has been passed. The bank therefore was constrained to move the petition under S.151 and 152 C. P. C. for amendment of the decree. The learned counsel for the judgment debtors however, contended that the decree in question was one passed at a time when O.34 stood amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and as such the court was justified in not passing a composite decree. The counsel therefore contended that there was no scope for amendment of the decree making it composite decree.