PANKAJAMMAL Vs. SESHADRI AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first objection taken is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to amend the decree because the judgment was confirmed by the High Court. THE High Court dismissed the second appei.1 en the ground that no appeal lay. It could not, therefore, be said to have confirmed th9 appellate decree and it could not be said that the final decree in the case is that of the High Court. No authority has been cited for the position that the dismissal of an appeal on the ground that an appeal does not lie in the case can be regarded as confirming the decree of the lower Court, or as a decree which supersedes the decree of the lower Court. THE objection must be disallowed. THE next objection is that the District Judge misconstrued his judgment in coming to the conclusion that the decree was not in accordance with the judgment and, as he acted under Section 206 in a case in which he had no power to do so, in consequence of his misconstruction, he acted in excess of his jurisdiction. We see from a perusal of the judgment that the District Judge allowed the plaintiff s appeal. THE plaintiff s claim was for Es. 120. By allowing the appeal, therefore, he passed a decree for that amount. He, no doubt, held that the plaintiff was only entitled to the tirva but he-did not find that this tirva was anything else than the Rs. 120 claimed. THE decretal portion of the judgment must be taken to be a direction allowing the appeal and passing a decree in plaintiff s favour. He, therefore, acted in excess of his jurisdiction. It is immaterial that he did so in consequence of an error of law so far as this Court s power is concerned. See Manisha Eradi v. Siyali Kova 11 M. 220. THE petition must, therefore, be allowed and the order directing the amendment reversed. THE original decree is restored. THE respondent must pay petitioner s costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court. THE judgment in C.R.P. No. 239 of 1911 follows the judgment in this case. Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

(2.) I agree in the order proposed by my learned brother, but I will put it rather on the ground that the District Judge, in amending a decree which did not require any amendment, acted very irregularly in the exercise of his jurisdiction, that is, his procedure in so amending it was affected with material irregularity.