CHEKKALA NARAYANA RAO Vs. GRANDHI ATCHUTARAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed OS no. 39 of 1999 in the Court of I Additional senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, against the 1st respondent, for recovery of money. He has also prayed that a charge be created on an item of immovable property. The 2nd respondent got itself impleaded in the suit, as defendant No. 2, stating that the item mentioned in the suit schedule was, hypothecated to it. The trial Court decreed the suit. A decree was drawn in terms of order XXXIV CPC as though it is a suit for mortgage.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent filed IA no. 1456 of 2003, under Sections 151 and 153 of CPC with a prayer to amend the decree. It was urged that the suit was the one, for recovery of money-simplicitor, and the decree was drawn, as though it was a suit for mortgage. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the ia through order dated 19. 12. 2003. Hence, this revision.

(3.) SRI V. L. G. K. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner claimed a specific relief in the suit, not only for a decree for recovery of money, but also to create charge over an item of property, mentioned in the schedule, and that the decree was drawn in accordance with law. He contends that the 2nd respondent was very much a party to the suit, and there was absolutely no basis for it, to seek modification of the decree. He contends that Rule 15 of Order 34 CPC makes the form of a mortgage decree, applicable even to cases of charge also, and in that view of the matter, the order under revision cannot be sustained.