D DURGAMMA Vs. D GANGISETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order in I.A. No.489 of 1990 in A.S. No.29 of 1988 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram. The said appeal suit was filed against the judgment in O.S. No.9 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Mummidivaram. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the original suit are the petitioners in the present revision petition.

(2.) The suit was originally filed in the trial Court for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule lands. Later on the relief of 'declaration of title' was also added in the plaint. The suit was dismissed having held that there are some discrepancies in the plaint schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No.29 of 1988 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram.

(3.) The appeal was filed in the appellate Court on 4-4-1988. The appeal suit was disposed of on 5-4-1990 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff died on 22-4-1990 (sic. 1988). On 19-7-1988 the second appellant filed a memo requesting the Court to recognise the second appellant-second plaintiff as legal representative of the deceased first appellant-first plaintiff. However, no orders were passed on the said memo since by mistake it was not posted before the Court. Thereafter the appeal was disposed of on 5-4-1990. Even on the date of disposal of the appeal by the appellate Court on 5-4-1990, it did not notice the memo filed by the second appellant to recognise her as the legal heir of the first appellant, with the result no orders were passed on the memo filed on 19-7-1988. Therefore after disposal of the appeal the second appellant filed I.A. No.489/90 out of which the present revision is filed, to amend the judgment as well as the decree under Sections 152 and 153 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge dismissed the said interlocutory application on the ground that there is no mistake or error committed and therefore the question of correcting the same under Sections 152 and 153 Civil Procedure Code does not arise.