TANTOO Vs. MANTOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the judgment -debtor from an order of the learned munsiff of Chhatarpur refusing to amend the decree passed against him in a suit by the plaintiff opposite party. The question is whether an application for amendment of decree can at all be made when the decree agrees with the judgment though in the latter, ft is alleged, that the contents of a joint compromise petition had been misunderstood. The second question is whether the re -visional jurisdiction should at all be invoked when the applicant approaches the court about it a year, after the judgment was passed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are the following: The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit against the defendant claiming about 750/ -rupees. The case was to come up on 21 -8 -51. In the meantime, on 8 -8 -51, the parties filed a compromise petition. On 21 -8 -51 which was a date fixed for the case, the learned munsiff delivered a judgment in which he decided that there should be a decree against the defendant for Rs. 300/ -; the plaintiff should forego the test of the claim and the parties should bear their own costs and pleader's fee. In course of time a decree was passed accordingly. The plaintiff came up with a petition on 17 -3 -52 praying that a clerical mistake in the compromise petition might be corrected. That petition was summarily dismissed as the munsiff was not prepared to reopen the matter after judgment and decree had been passed. Sometime afterwards the plaintiff levied execution for the sum of Rs. 300/ - given by the decree plus interest and the costs of the execution case. Now, about a year after the decision the defendant came to the court with an application for the amendment of the decree alleging that is was intended in the compromise petition that the plaintiff should pay him Rs. 300/ -. The learned munsiff rejected this prayer. Point No. (1).

(3.) THE re -visional jurisdiction will not be exercised when the party seeking it has been greatly negligent or for some ulterior reason had kept quiet for a long time. As already noted the petition was filed on 8 -8 -51. The case was disposed of on 24 -8 -51 and the decree was prepared on the same day. It was signed by the court much later. The defendant never cared to look into the judgment. Before the signing of the decree he did not feel curious and did not care to see what sort of decree was being prepared. Even after the decree was prepared, he kept quint for many months. His present allegation that he believed all the time that a decree for Rs. 300/ - in his favour had been passed is obviously false. Had it been so, it is difficult to understand why he did not obtain a copy of the decree. Even if he had put off applying for execution, he would certainly have obtained a copy, if it was to his interest to keep a copy of the decree in his favour. Whatever the reason, the defendant has raised this point after such a long time that this court cannot invoke the re -visional jurisdiction in his favour.