(1.) THE order impugned is dated 20-9-1989 passed by learned District Judge, Shivpuri, rejecting an application made Under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. The applicant has petitioned this Court Under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order rejecting his contention that the decree ought to have to be corrected as there was an accidental slip due to which the counsel's fee was typed as Rs. 500/ -. It is contended that the trial Court is supposed to act in accordance with law and counsel's fee is supposed to be fixed as Rs. 5,000/-, as contemplated under the law, the suit being valued at Rs. 5 Lakhs. Through mistake there was an accidental slip as a result of which only two zeros were typed after the figure '5' and third zero was missed.
(2.) SHRI P. D. Agarwal, Panel Lawyer, has opposed seriously and vehemently the revisionist's plea, who is none else than Government Advocate, who had appeared for defendant, State of Madhya Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1987. By judgment and decree dated 3-4-1989, the suit was decreed against the State with costs. However, Counsel's fee was typed in the judgment and also in the decree as "rs. 500/-", resulting in denial of due and legal entitlement of the revisionist. In the judgment, which was passed by Shri R. S. Rathore, Distric Judge, Shivpuri, learned Judge stated as follows : ^^vfhkhkk"kd 'kqyd izekf. kr fd;s tkus ij 500@and :i;k ;kmuds }kjk fn;s x;s izek. ki= ds vuqlkj tks Hkh de gks] lohdkj fd;k tkos**a
(3.) THE application of the revisionist, Government Advocate, Shri Madanlal Gupta (who had apparred in the suit) was heard by not Shri R. S. Rathore, but by Shri B. V. Bhargava, who was successor-in-office of Shri Rathore. He took the view that no case for correction of any mistake was made out because the Court had exercised its discretion in fixing the counsel's fee at Rs. 500/- and not at Rs. 5,000/- as contended. Shri J. P. Gupta, who. appears for the revisionist, has rightly submitted that the Court below had no jurisdiction to act on surmises and conjectures in taking the view that Shri Rathore had "deliberately fixed Rs. 500/- as counsel's fee". He has submitted that no "circumstnaces" are at all referred to in the judgment in question dated 3-4-1989 as is clearly manifested in the aforementioned extract. He has submitted that it is a clear case of an accidental slip and of a typographical mistake because the Court passing the judgment and decree is supposed to act in accordance with law.