MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD Vs. VARKEY CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by Krishna Iyer J., as our learned brother felt that the decision of the Supreme Court in Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag ( AIR 1967 SC 1440 ) struck a different note from the decision of Vaidialingam J. of this Court in P. Kesavan v. Vazhoor Gopalan ( 1964 (1) KLR 155 ). Krishna Iyer J. wrote a judgment following the ruling of Vaidialingam J. when the counsel of the respondent was absent; and then our learned brother heard the counsel of the respondent who cited the ruling of the Supreme Court. It was thereafter that the reference to a Division Bench was made.

(2.) To us it appears that the question is fairly simple; and what is required is only a little clarification.

(3.) The respondent filed a suit with two prayers: one, a prayer for injunction restraining the defendants (the petitioner being the second defendant) from preventing the flow of a canal or altering its nature; and two, a prayer for restoring the status quo ante of the canal if the defendants had already closed it or changed its course The suit was decreed as prayed for. But, in the decree drafted by the ministerial staff of the court only the first relief was included. At the execution stage the respondent prayed for an amendment of the decree by including the second relief as well The Munsiff allowed the prayer; and the revision petition is against that order.