L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this Second Appeal, an important question of law falls for consideration. The defendant in O. S. No. 230/72 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, visakhapatnam is the appellant.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,996/- through a preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage. The suit was decreed on 31-7-1973. Four months time was granted for the appellant herein for payment of the amount failing which the property was to have been brought under sale. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 3. 000/- after decree.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed LA. No. 939/76 under Section 152 C. P. C, for correction of the decree on the ground that the decree drawn by the trial Court was not in conformity with the prescribed form. The LA. was ordered on 21-4-1979. Thereafter, the respondent filed LA. No. 101/81 on 18-11-1980 for final decree proceedings. The Executing Court dismissed the LA. as time barred through its order dated 24-8-1983.

( 4 ) THE respondent filed A. S. No. 119/85 against the order in IA. No. 101/81 in the court of the III Additional District Judge, visakhapatnam. The lower appellate Court through its judgment dated 2-3-1990 allowed the appeal and directed the final decree proceedings to go on. It is the order of the lower appellate Court in A. S. No. 119/95 which is challenged in this second Appeal.

( 5 ) SRI A. S. C. Bose, learned Advocate appearing for Sri C. Poornaiah, learned counsel for the appellant submits that LA. No. 101/81 filed by the respondent was clearly time barred. It is his contention that the view taken by the lower appellate Court that the respondent was entitled to file the application within three years from the date of amendment cannot be supported in law.

( 6 ) THOUGH notice was served upon the respondent, it did not choose to enter appearance.

( 7 ) IN this case it is necessary to note a few dates.

( 8 ) THE suit was decreed on 31-7-1973 by granting four months time for the appellant herein to pay the decretal amount failing which the mortgage property was to be brought to sale. The four months period expired by 30-11-1973. The limitation for filing application for final decree proceedings is three months (sic. years) from the expiry of the due date. Therefore, the last date for filing application for final decree proceedings was 30-11-1973 (sic. 30-11-1976 ). Claiming that there was some clerical or typographical error in drawing the preliminary decree, the respondent filed i. A. No. 939/76 under Section 152 of C. P. C. on 28-10-1976 (sic. 28-11-1976), i. e. , just two days before the expiry of limitation. The LA. was ordered on 21-4-1979. LA. No. 101/81 for the final decree proceedings was filed on 18-11-1980. The Executing court took the view that filing of an application under section 152 C. P. C does not have the effect of stopping the limitation and as such rejected the LA.

( 9 ) THE lower appellate Court on the other hand took the view that a fresh period of three years is available to the respondent from the date of correction of the decree i. e. , from 21-4-1979 and since the LA. was filed within three years from that date, the application was within limitation.

( 10 ) WHENEVER a party to suit finds that a decree is defective or wrong two courses are open to him. One is to seek review by filing an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of c. P. C. and the other is to seek correction by filing an application under Section 152 c. P. C. In the former, the correction ordered by the Court would bring about altogether a new decree and it becomes effective from the date of the order in the review. However, in the case of the latter, the decree as it was drawn in the first instance will continue to hold good and any correction of clerical or typographical mistake, would not bring about any new decree. It is also to be noticed in this context that while the law prescribes period of limitation for filing of review, no such limitation is p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document