J ABID HUSSAIN Vs. R K PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against the orders of the District Munsifs Gooty, passed in I. A. No. 119/57 filed in O. S. No. 448/31 allowing an amendment of a compromise decree purporting to act under Section 152, C. P. C. On behalf of the petitioner herein, objection is taken, to the exercise of the discretion vested in the Court under Section152 as admittedly the interests of the third party have intervened. The question that arises for decision is about the nature of the power vested in a Court to correct or amend a decree so as to bring it in conformity with the judgment or the record of com-promise, even though the rights of third parties have intervened in the meantime.

(2.) The following are the relevant facts : One S. Paul filed O. S. No. 448 of 1931 in the District Munsifs Court, Gooty against S.G. Phillips, and it was compromised. The memo of compromise contained the terms agreed between the parties. The dispute in the main related to the closing of a sluice and for the removal of newly constructed latrine in the site of the plaintiff Paul. The compromise found a solution to the satisfaction of the contestants.But the decree based upon it omitted the direction that the defendant Phillips should extend his wall up to the wall of one Durgamma, though the terms of the compromise contained it. This compromise, which was entered into in 1931, and as entered in the decree was in force and acted upon by the parties without let or hindrance; and it may be mentioned, the omission of this direction was not questioned at any time thereafter.While matters stood thus, the petitioner herein, Abid Hussain acquired the rights from the legal representatives of the said Phillips. The petitioner also reconstructed the house without any obstruction or objection raised by any of the legal representatives of Paul though he did not extend the wall up to that of Durgamma. It is only in 1955 on the file of the District Munsif, Gooty wherein they prayed for closing of ventilator and the removal of the latrine and for perpetual injunction for letting water into the lane by the petitioner herein.To substantiate their claim to the reliefs prayed for, these respondents have further taken the steps of filing I. A. No. 119/57 under Section 152, C. P. C. for carrying out the correction or causing the amendment of the decree. This the present petitioner objected to; but since the prayer of the respondent has been granted, this revision is prefer-red by defendant No. 5 in O. S. No. 265 of 1955.

(3.) It may at once be stated that the power of the Court to correct a decree under Section152, C. P. C. at any time is not questioned before me. But Mr. A. Krishnayya for the petitioner questions the scope even when interests of third parties intervened; and secondly, the learned counsel urged that the conduct of the person applying for the amendment when he is guilty of laches has a bearing on the exercise of the discretion by a Court.