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: Balgobind Rai V/s. Sheoraj Rai 46 Ind. Cas. 376 : 16 A.L.J. 451. Sahdeo Gir V/s. Deo Dutt Misir 29 Ind. Cas. 50 : 37 A. 323 : 13 A.L.J. 449.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 plaintiff 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.