KHURSHEED BAI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assails the judgment dated 29.2.2000 inasmuch as findings given in issue no.2 are not mentioned in the operative portion/relevant clause of the judgment and decree. The applicant is also aggrieved by judgment dated 15.11.2018 whereby his application filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the Court below.

(2.) Indisputably, the applicant/plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 1-A/1999 decided by the judgment dated 29.2.2000. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that issue no.2 was specifically decided by the court below in petitioner's favour which is evident from answer to issue no.2 and specific finding in this regard is contained in paragraph 16 of the judgment. Since the said findings are not translated in the relief clause, the applicant filed an application under Section 152 of the CPC dated 19.3.2015. This application was rejected on the ground that if relief claimed is not granted it shall be presumed to have been denied and application does not reflect any typographical error.

(3.) Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for applicant criticized this judgment by contending that reasons assigned in judgment dated 15.11.2018 are perverse in nature. It is nobody's case that relief claimed was declined. On the contrary, on the relief claimed, issue no.2 was framed and it was answered in favour of the applicant. The only clerical/ typographical error was that this relief no.2 was not mentioned in operative portion of judgment and decree. Thus, it is clearly a typographical error.