APPAJI REDDY Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the revision petitions, the defendant is the revision petitioner. C.R.P. No. 1064 of 1997 arises from O.S. No. 1494 of 1984, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Villupuram. IN that case, the decree itself was passed on June 22, 1985, against the petitioner and that has become final.

(2.) ALLEGING that there is a mistake in drafting the decree, an application was filed in I.A. No. 909 of 1996, by the plaintiff, which was allowed by the lower court. The plaintiff in that case is United Commercial Bank, now a Government of India undertaking. A suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 8, 247.65 with future interest. It is seen that the defendant has hypothecated certain machinery as security for the amount borrowed and when judgment was pronounced, the defendant was directed to pay the amount within a specified time and in case he fails to do so, the judgment further provided that the mortgaged property could be sold in auction. In case the decree amount could not be satisfied in spite of sale of the mortgaged properties, para. 5 of the judgment permitted the bank to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the balance amount.

(3.) IN this case applying the above principles, we have to consider whether there is any clerical mistake. Law is well settled that a decree is to be drawn up in accordance with the judgment. On a perusal of the judgment and decree it cannot be disputed that the decree drafted is not in accordance with the judgment. If the decree is at variance with the judgment it follows that the records of the court are not correct and the same have to be corrected. Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is based on two important principles : (1) based on the maxim that an act of court shall prejudice no party and (2) courts have a duty to see that their records are true and they represent the correct state of affairs.