KISHORI MOHAN Vs. CHHANGA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision came before one of the learned Judges of this Court and he referred the case to a Bench of two Judges, being of opinion that there was somewhat of a conflict between two cases decided by this Court, viz. Balgovind Rai V/s. Sheoraj Rai (1918) 16 A.L.J. 451, Sahadeo Gir V/s. Deo Dutt Misir (1915) 37 All. 323. We shall consider whether there is really any conflict between the two cases or not in the course of this judgment. But it will be necessary to state the facts of the case.

(2.) It appears that the applicant before us was a defendant in a suit for sale, he having been treated as a subsequent purchaser. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree for sale on the 10 of December, 1920. The decree that was framed was incorrect in so far as it ordered the payment of a larger sum than was really due on a proper calculation of the amount payable according to the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The applicant submitted to the decree although it ordered him to pay a sum larger than was really due under the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the decree as he claimed a larger amount. He filed an appeal and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on the 12 of July, 1921. A final decree for sale followed on the 6 of May, 1922. On the 9 of March, 1923, an execution of the final decree for sale was taken out by the plaintiffs and the defendant applicant paid up the amount for which the decree was executed and then made an application to the learned Subordinate Judge asking him to correct his decree. This application was made on the 21 of March, 1923. The opposite party, the plaintiff, took objection to the hearing of this application on the ground that the court of the District Judge was the only Court which Could correct the decree if any correction was needed. The applicant thereupon made an application to the learned District Judge on the 21 of July, 1923. On the 8 of September, 1923 the learned Judge passed the order which is sought to be revised. He held that there ought to be some limit to a party's making an application for correction of a decree and he refused to grant the application although he thought that there was some error in the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge.

(3.) In this Court in the case of Balgovind Rai V/s. Sheoraj Rai (1918) 16 A.L.J. 451 there was an application in revision against the order of a District Judge who amended a decree which he had affirmed in appeal and which was passed by a Munsif. In the circumstances of that case this Court held that, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to correct the error in the decree of the Munsif. It will be noticed that the decree of the Munsif had been passed under the old Cede and the language employed by their Lordships who heard the application shows that they were considering the provisions of Section 206 of the Civil P. C.. It is true that Section 206 of the old Code is not specifically mentioned, but the learned Judges used the following language: It was necessary for the applicant to show not a variance between the judgment of the Munsif and the decree of the Munsif, but a variance between the judgment of the District Judge and the decree of the District Judge.