SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(AP) 109

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : MUNI KANNIAH
J.Abid Hussain - Appellant
Versus
R.K.Paul - Respondent
Decided On : 04-15-60

The power of the court to correct or amend a decree under Section 152, C.P.C. is limited when the rights of third parties have intervened.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 152 - AMENDMENT OF DECREE - POWER OF COURT TO CORRECT OR AMEND A DECREE - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS - INTERVENTION OF RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES - EXERCISE OF DISCRETION - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING.

Fact of the Case:

A compromise decree was passed in 1931, but it omitted a direction that the defendant should extend his wall up to the wall of one Durgamma. In 1955, the respondents filed an application under Section 152, C.P.C. for carrying out the correction or causing the amendment of the decree. The petitioner, who had acquired rights from the legal representatives of the defendant, objected to the amendment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power of the court to correct a decree under Section 152, C.P.C. at any time is not questioned, but the scope of the power is limited when the rights of third parties have intervened. The court further held that the petitioner had acquired rights in the suit properties and had reconstructed the house, and that the respondents had kept quiet for a long time before seeking the amendment of the decree. Therefore, the court held that the requirements necessary to bring the case under the exception of Section 152 as recognized by judicial dicta had been made out in the instant case.

Issues: 1. Whether the court has the power to correct or amend a decree under Section 152, C.P.C. even when the rights of third parties have intervened? 2. Whether the petitioner had acquired rights in the suit properties and had reconstructed the house? 3. Whether the respondents had kept quiet for a long time before seeking the amendment of the decree?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has the power to correct or amend a decree under Section 152, C.P.C. at any time, but the scope of the power is limited when the rights of third parties have intervened. 2. The petitioner had acquired rights in the suit properties and had reconstructed the house. 3. The respondents had kept quiet for a long time before seeking the amendment of the decree.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the correction or amendment made by the lower court.

MUNIKANNIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is against the orders of the District Munsifs Gooty, passed in I. A. No. 119/57 filed in O. S. No. 448/31 allowing an amendment of a compromise decree purporting to act under Section 152, C. P. C. On behalf of the petitioner herein, objection is taken, to the exercise of the discretion vested in the Court under Section152 as admittedly the interests of the third party have intervened. The question that arises for decision is about the nature of the power vested in a Court to correct or amend a decree so as to bring it in conformity with the judgment or the record of com-promise, even though the rights of third parties have intervened in the meantime.

( 2 ) THE following are the relevant facts : One S. Paul filed O. S. No. 448 of 1931 in the District Munsifs Court, Gooty against S. G. Phillips, and it was compromised. The memo of compromise contained the terms agreed between the parties. The dispute in the main related to the closing of a sluice and for the removal of newly constructed latrine in the site of the plaintiff Paul. The compromise found a solution to the satisfaction of the contestants. But the decree based upon it omitted the direction that the defendant Phillips should extend his wall up to the wall of one Durgamma, though the terms of the compromise contained it. This compromise, which was entered into in 1931, and as entered in the decree was in force and acted upon by the parties without let or hindrance; and it may be mentioned, the omission of this direction was not questioned at any time thereafter. While matters stood thus, the petitioner herein, Abid Hussain acquired the rights from the legal representatives of the said Phillips. The petitioner also reconstructed the house without any obstruction or objection raised by any of the legal representatives of Paul though he did not extend the wall up to that of Durgamma. It is only in 1955 on the file of the District Munsif, Gooty wherein they prayed for closing of ventilator and the removal of the latrine and for perpetual injunction for letting water into the lane by the petitioner herein. To substantiate their claim to the reliefs prayed for, these respondents have further taken the steps of filing I. A. No. 119/57 under Section 152, C. P. C. for carrying out the correction or causing the amendment of the decree. This the present petitioner objected to; but since the prayer of the respondent has been granted, this revision is prefer-red by defendant No. 5 in O. S. No. 265 of 1955.

( 3 ) IT may at once be stated that the power of the Court to correct a decree under Section152, C. P. C. at any time is not questioned before me. But Mr. A. Krishnayya for the petitioner questions the scope even when interests of third parties intervened; and secondly, the learned counsel urged that the conduct of the person applying for the amendment when he is guilty of laches has a bearing on the exercise of the discretion by a Court.

( 4 ) IN support of the first point, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Madras High Court: Narayana Iyer v. Biyari Bivi, AIR 1923 Mad 57, is a case where the exercise of power under Section152, C. P. C. was considered by Oldfield and Ramesam, JJ. when rights of third parties who acted in good faith have intervened. The Division Bench relied upon the report of the House of Lords in Hatton v. Harris, (1892) AC 547, and ruled that even though no period of limitation is provided for application for the exercise of the discretion under Section152, an application for amendment should be rejected as too late if the rights of the third parties, acting in good faith have intervened. In Butchiah Chetti v. Tayar Rao Naidu, AIR 1931 Mad 399, another Division Bench consisting of Beasley, C. J. and Walsh, J. were considering the amendment of a defective decree though it was ordered when the decree was passed that it should be in terms of the compromise between the parties. When th





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top