K AKUNJALU Vs. V VJOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though civil miscellaneous petitions are posted before me today, by consent of both the counsel, C. R. P. , itself is taken up for disposal. The defendant has preferred this civil revision petition against the order in I. ANo. 1564 of 1992 allowing the amendment of the money decree passed on 24. 7. 1992. The said I. A. was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. In the said LA the amendment sought for is mentioned as follows: ' The rate of interest as mentioned in the decree is an apparent error while drafting the decree. After having pronounced the judgment as prayed for, the plaintiff is entitled to contract rate of interest from the date of suit till realisation. The prayer in the plaint is also specific to that effect. Therefore it is just and necessary that the Hon ble Court may be pleased to amend the decree with 24 per cent interest from the date of suit till realisation . The said LA was no doubt filed under Sec. 152, C. P. C.

(2.) THE only question involved is whether the above referred to amendment of the decree is in accordance with the judgment that was given in the suit O. S. No. 610 of 1988. THE prayer in the suit is as follows: ' to pass a decree against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,71,933 with future interest at the same rate on the principal sum of the suit . THE same rate referred to above is 24% since in the preceding paragraph of the plaint where details of valuation are given, after mentioning the principal sum of rs. 1,00,000 it is mentioned that interest at 24% per annum from 9. 7. 1985 to 8. 7. 1988, the date of the suit is claimed. So according to the prayer in the plaint, from the date of suit till realisation 24% per annum is claimed as contractual rate of interest. As against this prayer in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the conclusion reached is as follows: While so, the decree as drafted, grants interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent/plaintiff filed the abovesaid I. A. No. 1564 of 1992. But aggrieved by the abovesaid order granted in the I. A. the defendant has preferred the present civil revision petition.