SIVADAS MUKERJEE Vs. SURENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application made under Secs.151 and 152 of the Civil P. C. for amendment of the judgment of this Court in Appeal from Original Decree, No. 23 of 1920.

(2.) Section 151 presumes the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Section 152 authorises the Court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. This may be done by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. Section 153 provides that the Court may, at any time, and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding. We have no doubt that in the events which have happened it is open to us to give necessary directions under one or other of these provisions of the Code.

(3.) The history of this litigation is set out in our judgment which has been reported: Surendra Nath Chatterjee V/s. Sivadas Mookerjee, 69 Ind. Cas. 867 : 35 C.L.J. 488; (1922) A.I.R. (C) 182. We were called upon to consider in the appeal the question whether the Will executed by Rai Bahadur Krishna Mohan Mookerjee on the 24 June, 1916, and a codicil had been revoked and cancelled The Trial Court came to the conclusion the Will as also the codicil had been revoked. On appeal we held that the Will had been revoked but that the codicil was in full operation. Our views were summarised in the following passage of our judgment: "Our conclusion is that the second Will executed on the 24 June, 1916, was revoked by the testator on the 14 April, 1918, by the execution of the deed of gift and also by tearing; but that the codicil was not revoked either in law or in fact." After this statement of our conclusion we proceeded to add as follows: "the result is that this appeal is allowed and the decree of the District Judge set aside. We direct that Probate be issued to the appellant in respect of the codicil dated the 24 June 1916." Our attention has now been drawn to the fact that as the Will was revoked, the provision for the appointment of executors disappeared. Consequently, no Probate could be granted in respect of the codicil which did not embody a provision for the appointment of executors This escaped the notice of the Court and our judgment must accordingly be amended We direct that the judgment be amended by the substitution of the words. "Letters of Administration" for word Probate.