SATYABADI PRADHAN Vs. KANHEI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner against the amendment of a Small Cause Court decree behind his back. The petitioner obtained his decree by con-sent on 31 January 1936, and under it though he was the defendant in the suit, he was to get Rs. 260 from the plaintiff by 15 March 1936, with interest at 1 pice per rupee per mensem in default.

(2.) In April 1939, the petitioner applied for execution and an attachment was ordered to issue, but the execution case was dismissed on 25 April 1939, for the petitioner's default in filing process fees. Meanwhile, in February 1938, the opposite party had filed an application under Secs.152 and 151, Civil P.C., asking for the transposition of the words plaintiff and defendant in the decree of January 1936. Not only was this application allowed, but the amount was also reduced from Rs. 260 to Rs. 60 by an order of the Small Cause Court Judge, Sri Nagendra Nath Das on 11 August 1938. In the latter part of 1939, plaintiff applied for execution of this amended decree, and on receipt, towards the end of January 1940, of notice of this execution the petitioner made his application, complaining that the amendment was made behind his back. The lower Court has dismissed this application on the ground that there is nothing in Section 152 to suggest that the petitioner is entitled to a notice, and that even if he is entitled to any such, he cannot have the order set aside in the manner he seeks to do. The learned Judge below thought that the petitioner's remedy "lies elsewhere, if he has any".

(3.) The learned advocate for the opposite party before me has not been able to support the point of the observation of the learned Judge below that there is nothing in Section 152 to suggest that the petitioner is entitled to a notice. The amendment was made on an application under Secs.152 and 151, Civil P.C., and there cannot be any gainsaying the fact that when the Court acts in the exercise of its jurisdiction under these Secs.it should only do so after notice to the party to be affected by the amendment-all the more so in the case of a decree that was passed on consent. The Court has no inherent power to alter orders passed with the consent of parties unless at least notice is given to the parties affected. I have also not been able to understand why the Court below thought that the petitioner could not have the amendment set aside on the present application, or that his remedy, if any, lay elsewhere.