SURESHWAR PRASAD BHAKAT Vs. MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor 3 in an execution case. The suit was instituted in 1915. The decree of the High Court in second appeal was passed on 30 March 1927. No step was taken to execute the decree for three years from that date but after the three years had expired, viz. on 21 January 1931, the decree-holder made an application in the lower Appellate Court for amendment of the decree on the ground that there were two errors in the decree of the Appellate Court: one, in respect of the number of the original suit and the other in respect of the name of appellant 2, viz. that the number of the suit should be not 438 of 1925 but 438 of 1915 and the name of judgment-debtor 2 should be Tareshwar Prosad Bhakat instead of Tarakeshwar Prosad Bhakat. The amendment was made on 1 April 1931. Thereafter an application for execution was made on 23 November 1932. A notice upon the judgment-debtor was issued, but no further steps being taken by the decree-holder, the application was dismissed on 26 July 1933. Thereafter on 12 July 1935, the present execution petition was filed. The judgment-debtor 3, the present appellant, objected to the execution on the ground that the alleged amendment was a mere verbal correction of matters which in no way affected the execution of the decree and as such the amendment did not save the limitation of the decree which was barred not having been executed for three years. The objection was rejected by the trial Court and an appeal to the District Judge was dismissed.

(2.) In this Court, the learned advocates on both sides have argued the matter at length dwelling upon the relevant rulings. The words of Art. 182, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, so far as are relevant in the present case are these: For the execution of a decree the period of limitation is three years from (1) the date of the decree or (2) (where there has been an appeal) the date of the final decree of the Appellate Court or the withdrawal of the appeal or (3) (where there has been a review of judgment) the date of the decision passed on the review, or (4) (where the decree has been amended) the date of amendment.

(3.) Both the Courts below have held that inasmuch as the decree was amended on 1 April 1931, the execution petition of 23 November 1932 was in order and the second execution petition which was filed within three years of the decision of the first was also in order. The question is whether the amendment made in this case comes under Clause (4) of Art. 182. The word "amend" according to the Oxford Dictionary means "to abandon evil ways; to make better; (in law) to correct an error". The question is whether the two clerical errors which were corrected amounted in fact to an amendment within the meaning of Art. 182(4).