KARTHIKEYAN Vs. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the amended decree made in O.S.No.173 of 2002 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Chidambaram, this revision is filed.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount which was paid under the agreement of sale and in the plaint she prayed for the recovery of the said amount with a charge over the schedule mentioned property of the plaint and also for damages. The suit was decreed exparte and as per the Judgement the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,71,250/- with costs and with the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the date of plaint till the date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation. The decree which followed the judgment also incorporated the same terms. Thereafter, the decree was amended at the instance of the respondent/ plaintiff without notice to the revision petitioner and as per the amended decree a charge was created over the suit property till the payment is made. He therefore submitted that without giving notice regarding the amendment of decree the Court below ought not to have amended the decree. He further submitted that when the respondent/ plaintiff specifically prayed for a charge over the property till the payment is made and while passing the decree the Court below did not grant the relief of creating charge over the property as prayed in the plaint and therefore the Court below deemed to have rejected the relief regarding the charge over the property and therefore the decree cannot be amended later. If at all, the respondent were aggrieved by the non-inclusion of the relief regarding the charge created over the suit property he ought to have filed an appeal and at any rate the Court below ought not to have amended the decree without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner.