KATIKARA SIMHAGIRI DORA ALIAS LATCHANNA DORA Vs. SRI VYRICHERLA CHANDRAMANI PATTAMAHADEVI ZEMINDARINI OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On an application by defendant 6, the lower Court amended what is often described as the decretal part of the judgment to bring it into conformity with the earlier parts of the judgment. He thereupon amended the decree to bring it into confirmity with the amended judgment. Against that order, this revision petition has been filed under Section 115, Civil P. C., and a preliminary point has been taken that no civil revision petition lies.

(2.) One of the earliest cases in which the question whether a revision petition lay against such an amendment or an appeal was considered was Raghunath Das v. Raj Kumar, 7 ALL. 276 : (1885 A. W. N. 256), which was followed by the same two Judges in Surta v. Ganga, 7 ALL. 411 : (1835 A. W. N. 88), Oldfield J. held that since the decree was amended, an appeal would lie against the amended decree. Mahmood J., in a long discussion of the various aspects of the case, did not directly say that no appeal would lie against the amended decree, but discussed whether the amending order would amount to a decree; and he held that it would not. He then went on to express his opinion that a revision petition did lie. The matter was again considered in Letters Patent appeal by a Full Bench in Raghunath Das v. Raj Kumar, 7 ALL. 876: (1685 A. W. N. 266 F. B.), in which, in a single sentence judgment, the view of Mahmood J. was accepted. A similar question arose in Narayanasami v. Natesa, 16 Mad. 424, where Best J. referred to the Allahabad cases and said, with regard to the objection that no revision petition lay :

(3.) The preliminary objection is upheld. It has been suggested that this civil revision petition should be converted into a regular appeal. That can hardly be done, since the decree appealed against has not been filed.