NALAMPATI RADHAKRISHNAIAH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision-petitioner herein filed an application in the lower court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the judgment and decree passed in the original suit which was turned down by the lower court. Hence, this revision.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are: The respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of certain amount on the basis of a mortgage deed against the petitioner herein, and obtained a preliminary decree, which preliminary decree awarded future interest on the decretal amount from the date of decree til! the date of redemption at 14.1/2% per annum end from the date of redemption till the date of realisation at 14 1/2% per annum. Thereupon, the petitioner herein filed an application stating that the respondent is entitled to claim interest subsequent to the sult only at 6% per annum as par the provisions of Section 34 of Code of Civil Procedure and the Court by accidental slip awarded subsequent interest also at 14 1 /2% per annum, and the said error was due to over sight and not intentional, and, therefore, the error so committed in the judgment as well as in the decree has to be corrected by amending the same, enabling tha respondent to claim future interest only at 6% per annum Instead of at 14 1/2% per annum. Tha learned Subordinate Judge concluded on the said application that the decree is mortgage decree, and as such, the provisions of Order 34 Rule 11, C.P.C. alone will govern the case for awarding future interest, and since there is no error apparant on the face of the record, or any accidental slip or omission or clerical arithmetical mistake in the present case in awarding future interest at 14 1/2% per annum, the judgment and decree are not liable for any amendment as sought for.

(3.) The seamed counsel for the petitioner Sri,Kodandsramsyya contended that it is quite apparent from the order made in the judgment as well as in the decree of the Court which has decreed the original suit, that the discretion as contemplated under Order 34 Rule 11, C.P.C. has not been exercised in the matter of awarding future interest, and therefore, this comes within the meaning of an error apparent on the face of the record giving rise to what may be called an accidental slip or omission as contemplated under Section 152, C.P.C., and therefore, it Is competent for the lower Court to amend the judgment and decree so as to be in consonance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contra contention of Sri Haranath, learned counsel for the respondent is, that from the nature of the decision it Is quite clear that the discretion has been exercised in the matter of awarding future interest, and therefore, there is no accidental slip or omission which would give rise to any claim by the petitioner herein for amendment c! the judgment and decree, and in any case application under Section 152 C.P.C. is not maintainable and much less any interference in this civil revision petition is called for.