EMANI VENKATA SUBBA RAO Vs. KANIKICHARLA NAGABHUSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under S. 115 C.P.C. has been filed to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, in I.A. Nos. 217 and 641 of 1980 in O.S. No. 23 of 1976. The petitioner has filed this revision as it party -in -person and when the matter came up for hearing in the morning, I had requested the learned Counsel. Sri M.R.K. Choudary to act as amicus curiae in this matter and adjourned the matter to after lunch to enable him to go through the records. The matter was taken up after lunch and Mr. Choudary has presented the case on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner filed the suit, O.S. No. 23 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court. Bapatla against the sole defendant for recovery of various amounts. The said suit was dismissed with costs by the judgment and decree dated 28 -4 -1979. It appears that the defendant has filed E.P. No. 144 of 1979 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali for the recovery of costs awarded to him from the petitioner plaintiff, though it is not clear from the records, probably after the decree was transferred to that Court for execution. The present applications have been filed by the petitioner under Ss. 151, 152 and 153 C.P.C. to amend the judgment and decree. The grounds of revision as well as the contentions in the petition are made in a very involved manner. It is for this reason that I have requested Mr. Choudary to act as amicus curiae. In the said applications, the complaint of the petitioner is that the judgment dismissing the suit was patently erroneous. It may be that the judgment was erroneous or even wrong; but I am afraid that it cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of S. 151 or 152 C.P.C. Section 153 apparently has no application for amendment of the judgment and decree in the suit, but applies only to proceedings in the suit. The conclusion of the trial Court that no relief can be given to the petitioner in the present petitions under Ss. 151 and 152 cannot be said to be wrong. It may be that the petitioner reasonably believes that injustice was done to him by a wrong judgment in the suit; but the proper remedy was to prefer an appeal against the said judgment. The present petitions therefore cannot secure any relief to the petitioner. The decision reported in Samarendra v. Krishna Kumar, : AIR 1967 SC 1440 cannot help the petitioner in this case. So far as his complaint against the E.P. is concerned, he will have to take appropriate action before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali if he has got any grievance.

(2.) AS a result of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. I am thankful to Sri M.R.K. Choudary for having appeared as amicus curiae in this case.