G V V SATYANARAYANA Vs. G MUNESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order in LA. No.2654/1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, dated 22-4-1997 is challenged in this C.R.P.

(2.) The facts leading to this C.R.P. in brief are that the parties herein are brothers. The respondent filed a partition suit O.S.No.8/1983 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Kovvur, in respect of the plaint schedule properties and ultimately the parties entered into a compromise and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed on 5-3-1991. The revision petitioner is the defendant therein. It is his case that some time later he came to know that some mistakes have crept into the compromise petition and the consequential decree and clarifications are necessary for enforcing the real spirit of the compromise. He accordingly styled this petition as an amendment petition and sought for amendment of compromise petition and plans under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition is resisted by the respondent-plaintiff stating that the compromise was entered into long back and it has become final as the same is not challenged at any stage fpr over 5 years and that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and hence Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C, have no application. According to him he had to file anothir suit viz., O.S.No.46/1991 against the revision petitioner in the District Court and that suit has been decreed on merits on 31-10-1996 and this petition is meant for getting over the findings in O.S.No.46/1991.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge considered the rival contentions and held that the decree passed in terms of the compromise on 5-3-1991 has become final and that the Court has no right to amend the compromise petition since it is not the order of the Court and since the compromise was filed by the parties themselves with their eyes wide open. It is further held that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and hence the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 C.P.C. will not apply. In that view of the matter, the petition has been dismissed. Thus, the defendant in O.S. No.8/1983 is in this Court with this revision petition seeking necessary amendment or alternatively clarifications.