ABDULLAH GANAI Vs. QADIR NAJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for declaration and permanent injunction a decree on the basis of compromise was passed by Sub -Judge, Shopian, on 28 -5 -1970. On 31 -8 -1970 an application for correction and amendment of the decree was submitted in the trial court by respondent alleging that the decree framed was not in accordance with the terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The learned trial court after recording evidence and after hearing both the parties allowed the application by his order dated 25 -9 -1974. The learned trial court held that perhaps due to an oversight the decree had not been framed in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the real intention of the parties and as such it ordered the decree may be so corrected as to give effect to the real intention of the parties. The appellant went in appeal before the District Judge, Anantnag against this order of amendment. The appeal, however, was dismissed by the District Judge vide his order dated 27 -11 -1975 holding that no appeal was maintainable. The appellant preferred an appeal against this order of the District Judge but the same was dismissed in limine by this court on the ground that no appeal on the facts of the case would lie against the order of the trial court. It is alleged that the High Court order was dated 26 -3 -1976. On 28 -5 -1976, as a last resort, the present revision has been filed alleging that the order of Sub Judge Shopian dated 25 -9 -1974 was illegal and that the same be set aside.

(2.) AS to whether the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Anantnag was, however, in dispute. There was nothing on record to show that an appeal had been preferred and that this court while dismissing the appeal in limine had directed that a revision petition be filed against the order of the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that though there was nothing on record to substantiate it, the fact that an appeal had been lodged was not disputed by him.

(3.) TWO points of law have arisen in this revision petition and on both these points arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioner was that it was not within the competence of the trial court to, have ordered amendment of the decree as the matter did not fall within the provisions of section 152 C.P.C. The second point was raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. According to him the present petition was barred by limitation and, therefore, could not be maintained.