P R SAIGAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the revisionist. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 1,23,583 43 Ps. on 6th November, 1975. It is prayed in the plaint that the suit be decreed with interest at the rate of 14 per cent, from the date of suit to the date of suit of realisation. Eventually the lower Court in its judgment decreed the suit as under: "In view of the findings given above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the suit amount. 9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for." The revisionist filed Interlocutory Application No. 612 of 1977 under sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the judgment and decree in the suit by deleting the portion "the defendant de pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,23,583 43 Paise with future interest at 14 per cent per annum from the date of suit, namely 6th November, 1975 till the date of realisation" and by substituting the words" "the defendant do pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,23,583.43 Paise with fucure interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of suit ie. 6th November, 1975 till the date of realisation." The interlocutory application was dismissed by the lower Court stating that the case does not involve any clerical error or arithmetical mistakes either in the judgment or in the decree nor are there any accidental slips or omissions as contemplated under section 152, Civil Procedure Code. As per the finding given in the various issues framed in the suit, the suit was decreed with costs as prayed for and accordingly the decree was also drafted. The lower Court also held:

(2.) Further, under Order 20, rule 6 A, Civil Procedure Cole, the last portion of the judgment shall state in precise terms the relief which is granted under judgment. In the judgment it is merely mentioned as "the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs." Though in the plaint, the prayer, is for awarding future interest at 14 per cent it was not competent for the Court to have decreed the suit awarding interest exceeding 6 per cent.

(3.) The Counsel for the respondent contends that the plaintiff has prayed for award of 14 per cent interest per annum from the date of decree to the date of realisation and that was not disputed in the written statement. So no finding whatsoever was given and the lower Court decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence it is not a case where the Court had no jurisdiction. It may be at the most a case of involving question of law for which the remedy was to prefer an appeal against. The remedy sought for under sections 152 and 153, Civil Procedure Code, is not available to the petitioner herein inasmuch as it does not involve any arithmetical or clerical mistake. The learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the following decisions: S. Barrow v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another and Gwalior Northern India Transport Co. Ltd., and another v. Dinkar Durga Shanker Joshi and another. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply argued that awarding of interest cannot be a question which falls for determination. The Court on its own will have to act as per t he provisions of law. There was a failure to pass a decree in terms of the judgment within the meaning of section 34, Civil Procedure Code which is an accidental omission apparent on the face of record and this error can be rectified and if the Court of original instance refuses to do, this Court is competent to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. For that the learned Counsel relied on Chatli Narasimhamurthi and others v. Narayanasetti Jagannaikulu. Section 34 commands the Court not to award future interest from the date of decree to the date of realisation more than 6 per cent per annum. Admittedly, the proviso to section 34 has been brougnt into vogue by the amended enactment of 1976 on 1st July, 1977. Therefore the embargo on the discretionary power of the Court was very much in existence at a time when the judgment was passed, i. e , 23rd April, 1977. Consequently, the Court was under a cons traint not to award interest at more than 6 per cent per annum. In the judgment, the operative portion merely ended with the words. "In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as prayed for". A fortiori it follows that since the prayer was for awarding future interest at the rate of 14| per cent per annum, the same is construed to have been decreed. In fact. Order 20, rule 6-A, which has been specifically enacted by the Amendment Act CIV of 1976, says in explicit terms that the judgment shall state in precise terms the relief which has been granted by such judgment. This apprehend is mandatory. In any event, the lower Court has ordered in awarding the future interest at 14 Counsel relied on Chatli Narasimhamurthi and others v. Narayanasetti Jagannaikulu.arned Counsel relied on Chatli Narasimhamurthi and others v. Narayanasetti Jagannaikulu. 14 cent, per annum though there is no precision in the judgment. But this is the irresistible conclusion in view of the prayer made in the plaint. Then it tantamounts to an error because it is more the Act of a Court and does not depend upon the determination by way of framing any issue, leading any evidence so on and so forth. Therefore, this amounts to an error apparent on the face of the judgment. In S. Barrow v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, it has been held that the omission to apply the provisions of an enactment or of the Constitution while deciding the matter within in the jurisdiction of the Court or officer cannot be said to result in complete absence of jurisdiction to decide it. it is true that every Court or officer is bound to follow the law as it is, but if a decision is given in ignorance of a piece of legislation, the decision cannot be said to be completely without jurisdiction. In Gwalior & Northern India Transport Company Limited and another v. Dinkar Durga Shanker Joshi and another dealing with the scope of section 152, Civil Procedure Code, it was held that in proceedings under section 152, there can be no question of an adjudication if it has been determined. In proceedings for amendment of the decree, the enquiry is confined only to saying whether the decree correctly expresses what was really decided and intended by the Court. In Chatti Narasimhamurthi and others v. Narayanasetti Jagannaikulu it was held :