RANBIR PRASAD Vs. PARVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS miscellaneous judicial case has been filed by the plaintiffs of title Suit No. 21 of 1951 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Patna, under the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the decree prepared in this Court in First Appeal No. 77 of 1955 be amended according to law. The plaintiff's title suit was dismissed by the trial Court with costs, and their appeal was also dismissed by this Court with costs by judgment dated the 10th May, 1961.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decree with respect to costs prepared by this Court is not according to the High Court Rules. It seems that the petitioners had filed a previous miscellaneous judicial case numbered as M. J. C. 753 of 1961, making the same prayer, complaining against the decree prepared by this Court in the first appeal. This case was withdrawn on the 16th December, 1963. THEreafter, on the 29th January, 1964 the petitioners filed Civil Review No. 4 of 1964 in this Court, asking for the same relief, with the prayer that they may be permitted to amend the valuation of the plaint. For non-compliance with a peremptory order passed on the 15th April, 1964 in this Civil review application, with respect to the payment of deficit Court-fee, the Civil review stood automatically rejected. THEreafter, this miscellaneous judicial case was filed on the 18th August, 1967. It is clear that Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 753 of 1961 was withdrawn, because it had been thought, at that stage, that civil review would lie, and civil review was, in fact, filed as stated above. After the civil review became in-fructuous this application has been filed after an inordinate delay. It is difficult to hold that Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made applicable, as it is not a case of any mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission. On the petitioners own valuation of the suit and their own valuation of the appeal the High Court has calculated costs. Apparently, that is why the petitioners had asked for permission to amend the valuation in the civil review. Section 151 of the Code can hardly be attracted after a lapse of so many years and after the default made by the petitioners in not pursuing their civil review. Thus, there is no merit in this case. It is, therefore, dismissed, but, under the circumstances, without costs.