NANDINAMPATI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO Vs. SRIKONDA VEERA RAGHAVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard the learned Counsel and perusing the judgment, it is obvious that a mistake has been occurred in the operative portion of the judgment in mentioning the number of the appeals. The judgment is clear that the suit for specific performance filed in O.S. No.50 of 1992 must fail and the other suit in O.S. No.65 of 1993 filed for eviction and profits shall be allowed.

(2.) The appeal filed as against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.50 of 1992 is A.S. No.104 of 1997. As against a part of the decree in refusing the relief of eviction, one appeal has been filed and as against the other part of the decree in arriving at the profits the defendants have filed the other appeal. Both the appeals initially have been filed before the District Court, West Godavari, at Eluru and have been subsequently transferred to this Court in view of the pendency of A.S. No.104 of 1997. The Tr. A.S-No.1943 of 1998 it, the appeal filed by the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No,65/93. The Tr. A.S. No.2283/99 is the appeal filed by the defendants in the suit O.S. No.65/93. Therefore, the appeal filed as against the suit for specific performance in O.S. No.50 of 1992 must fail. The appeal filed by the defendants in O.S. No.65/93 challenging the decree for rents must also fail and the appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.65 of 1993 for eviction and profits must be allowed. Therefore, A.S. No.104 of 1997 should be dismissed and Tr. A.S.No-2283 of 1999 should be dismissed and Tr. A.S. No.1943 of 1998 should be allowed. Instead, in the operative portion of the judgment it is mentioned that A.S. No.104 of 1997 and Tr.A.S.No.1943 of 1998 must fail, and the other Tr. A.S. No.2283 of 1999 must be allowed, which is a mistake due to inadvertence and can be rectified under Sec,153 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the operative portion of the judgment shall stand corrected that A.S. No.104 of 1997 and Tr.A.S. No.2283 of 1999 must fail and the other Tr. A.S. No.1943 of 1998 must be allowed, with profits.

(3.) In the result, A.S. No.104 of 1997 and Tr. A.S. No.2283 of 1999 are dismissed and the Tr. A.S. No.1943 of 1998 is allowed as prayed for, but without costs.