KARTAR SINGH Vs. SHRIMATI NACHHATTAR KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of a learned Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana declining to amend the decree which is the subject -matter of an appeal in this Court (R. F. A. No. 8 of 1964). The amendment was apparently sought on the ground that the costs awarded against the petitioner in the revision (appellant in the Regular First Appeal) were excessive and contrary to law. It may be stated that a ground to this effect has also been taken in the Regular First Appeal. See ground No. 9.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge has disposed of the petition in a very brief order saying that the application does not lie. Apparently, the learned Judge is of the view that an appeal having already been preferred in this Court, there was no question of his amending the decree on a point which was not prima facie a clerical or arithmetical error or an accidental mistake.

(3.) FOR the respondents, my attention has been drawn to one decision of the Calcutta High Court in Roshini Kumar Pal v. Kusum Kamini Pal, 105 I.C. 725, and another of Oudh Chief Court in S. Mujawir Husain v. Mt. Kishwar Jehan Begam, A.I.R. 1941 Oudh. 66 in support of the contention that the question of costs in such cases is discretionary with the trial Court and even if a plaintiff does not succeed completely, the Court can grant whole costs against the defendant, if the facts so justify.