KALASANI VENKATA LAXMI Vs. BOMMINENI ARUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein instituted O. S. No. 8 of 1986 seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties and for possession of her 1/10th share against the second respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the second respondent died and his legal representatives, i. e. , the petitioner and respondents 3 to 10 were brought on record. After contest, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 6-9-1994. Thereafter, an application for passing of final decree was passed, and the trial Court, after, appointment of an Advocate/commissioner and submission of the report by the said advocate/commissioner, passed a final decree on 23-12-1999. Though in the judgment, particular shares were allotted to the first respondent and the tenth respondent, while drafting the decree, the said shares were altered showing the share allotted to the first respondent/plaintiff in favour of the tenth respondent and the share allotted to the tenth respondent in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff.

(2.) DESPITE the fact that the final decree was passed and the shares were allotted, the same did not work out, and the first respondent filed a petition seeking execution, being E. P. No. 80 of 2000. Petitioner has taken an objection stating that the said decree cannot be executed in the light of the discrepancy as stated above and the Court below rejected the said objection. Questioning the said order, petitioner filed a revision and the same was also dismissed. As there was discrepancy, the first respondent filed i. A. No. 560 of 2007 seeking amendment of the decree under S. 152 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC ). The Court below allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, this revision Is filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to S. 152, C. P. C. and tried to Contend that it la only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either on its own motion (suo motu) or on the application of any of the parties, but as the said amendment is not falling in any of the provisions mentioned in S. 152, C. P. C. , the said amendment is not permissible. The learned counsel had also drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in P. Prasad v. Shirdi Enterprises, 2005 (1) ALD 787, wherein, a learned Judge of this Court, after following the judgment in Dwaraka Das v. State of m. P. (1999 (1) Supreme 429 : AIR 1999 SC 1031)has taken the view that if the petitioner wants amendment of the decree for correction of mistakes other than clerical or arithmetical, which is permissible by virtue of S. 152, C. P. C. , his remedy is to file an appeal, but not to seek amendment of the decree.