LAWS(KER)-1954-12-6

KALLIYANI AMMA Vs. ICHIKUTTY AMMA

Decided On December 02, 1954
KALLIYANI AMMA Appellant
V/S
ICHIKUTTY AMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The revision petition is from an order refusing to amend the decree. The amendment sought for related to the amount of advocate's fee entered in the decree. There was an appeal filed in the High Court from the decree of the District Court. That appeal was rejected for non payment of court fee. A decree was, however, prepared in the appeal. The court below rejected the petition for amendment on the ground that there having been an appeal from the decree of that court the appellate court alone had jurisdiction to amend the decree.

(2.) I do not think that the view taken by the court below is correct. Even if the rejection of the appeal for non payment of court fee amounts to a decree it cannot be said that the decree of the District Court has merged in that decree. There is conflict of opinion on the question whether the rejection of an appeal for non payment of court fee will amount to a decree. The question was discussed by Gajendragadkar, J. in Phaltan Bank v. Babu Rao (AIR 1954 Bom. 43). The learned Judge said:

(3.) It is, however, not necessary to decide that question in this revision petition. As stated already, even if the rejection of the appeal for non payment of court fee amounts to a decree, I do not think that the decree of the District Court can be said to have merged in that decree.