V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I. A. No. 957/88 in A. S. No. 29/84 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem, dt. 18-6-1996 refusing to amend the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 29/84, dt. 13-11-1986 under Sections 151, 152 and 153 C. P. C. so as to enforce the first instalment of annual maintenance from 15-3-1977 as sought for in the plaint. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 247/76 and appellant in A. S. No. 29/84 is the revision petitioner herein.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are that she is the widow of late Visweswara Rao, brother of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Husband of the revision petitioner died in March, 1938 and thereupon respondent Nos. 1 and 4 executed a registered maintenance deed dt. 18-3-1938 agreeing to pay Rs. 61. 00 towards annual maintenance until the date of her husband s death and later at the rate of Rs. 94. 00 per year creating a charge on item Nos. 2 and 3 and undivided share in item No. 1 of the plaint schedule. She has been receiving the above maintenance under protest and she has been demanding for enhancement of maintenance from joint family property and realising sufficient income. As the needs of the revision petitioner increased on account of the rise in prices of commodities and for various considerations, she sought for enhancement of maintenance at Rs. 1,800. 00 per year with effect from 15-3-1977 and in default of the payment of the same by due date, an interest of 5 1/2 per annum till the date of realisation is also sought for with a charge over the plaint schedule properties. The suit was resisted by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the suit and hence she preferred a. S. No. 29/84 to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem. On an assessment of the evidence on record, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit enhancing the maintenance to Rs. 1,800. 00 per year against D-1 to D-7 and D-17 and directed that the same be paid in two equal instalments, first on 15th March every year and the second on 15th september every year. A charge was created for the enhanced maintenance on the properties in respect of which registered maintenance deed was executed. As the date of commencement of the first instalment is not specifically mentioned in the result portion of the judgment and decree, the present petition for amendment of the judgment and decree is filed. It is asserted that an omission of the said date is only an accidental slip or error and the same is fit to be corrected.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a counter resisting the petition. It is stated that an appeal has been filed in the High Court against the above judgment and decree and hence this Court has become/functus officio and that it is open for the petitioner to move the High Court for necessary clarification. It is also stated there are no bona fides in the petition.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge considered the above contentions and perused the judgment and decree in A. S. No. 29/84 and held that the petitioner is not merely seeking a correction of date or some words omitted accidentally, but she is seeking an addition of some portion in the operative portion of the judgment as though she is seeking amendment of pleadings and that the same is not permissible under Sections 151 and 152 C. P. C. It is further stated that the amendment sought for would tantamount to reviewing the judgment and that this petition should have been filed when the Presiding Officer who rendered the judgment in A. S. No. 29/84 was holding the office and that he would have been in a better position to decide the commencement of maintenance. Thus, the petition has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate judge. Aggrieved by the order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

( 5 ) THE short point that arises for consideration is whether omission in the mentioning the date of commencement of the first instalment in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document