HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THESE revision arise from common judgment and order delivered by the principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bellary, in M. C. Nos. 44/ 94, 21/94 to 26/94 and 57/94 to 68/94. These cases were disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, 19 Petitions had been filed by the Petitioners in those cases under Section 151 and 152 of the code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the compromise decree as well as the compromise Petition with the allegations to the effect that they intend to correct the area of the land in question which was mentioned in the compromise decree as well as in the compromise Petition as 1707. 55 sq. yards, and to substitute figure 707. 55 sq. yards. The objection were filed to these applications on behalf of the opposite parties and it was submitted that the compromise decree being in accordance with the terms of the compromise and being in consonance with the compromise itself, it cannot be said that it was not a case of any arithmetical or typographical error alone, to have crept in the compromise petition and decree in O. S. No. 176/83 to 182/83, 184/83 to 199/83 and 175/ 83 which can be amendable by this Court actirig under Section 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil procedure. The Court below after considering the matter in detail and after quoting the terms of compromise and compromise decree, opined and observed that, "since here in these petitions, Petitioners sought to amend the compromise petition as well as decree and that too when no arithmetical error or any mistake being crept in the decree drawn by this Court as the Court has drew up the decree in consonance of the compromise petition, the application is not maintainable. " with these findings, the trial Court passed the order rejecting the applications,

( 2 ) I have heard Sri. Basavaraj Kareddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. V. Tilgul learned counsel for the Respondents.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the mistake was there in the compromise which resulted in passing of the compromise decree in the description of the area as 1707. 55 sq. yards and which according to the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner should have been only 707. 55 sq. yards. From a perusal of the record it also comes out that the advocates for the parties fixed the price at Rs. 55. 00 per sq. yard.

( 4 ) THE compromise decree and the terms of compromise readas under:-"compromise Petition filed on behalf of the parties under order 23 Rule 1 C. P. C. It is submitted: 1. On the advise of well wishers and elders, the parties in the suit have compounded the suit claim and pray that the decree be passed on the following terms and conditions: 2. The plaintiff's suit shall stand decreed as prayed for; 3. That the defendant in the suit and the defendants in the other suit are entitled to the suit schedule A open space subject to the payment of a total sum of Rs. 95,000. 00 being the sale price of rs. 1,707. 55 sq. yards of open space in T. S. No. 222, Ward No. 12, block No. 10 situated in Gandhinagar, Bellary, morefully described in the schedule A to the plaint which belongs to the plaintiff. The defendants in this suit and other suits viz. , 176, 177,178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 of 1983 shall pay the amount of Rs. 95. 000. 00 payable to the plaintiff on or before 4. 3. 1985. On payment of the said sum of defendant in this suit and defendants in other suits shall be declared to be the owners. On failure to pay the said sum the plaintiff's suit shall stand decreed as set out in para 1 and the plaintiff will be entitled to evict the defendants by virtue of this decree. He need not file a separate suit for that. 3. It shall, be the responsibility of this defendant and other defendants in other suits to contribute towards the sale price in accordance with the area in their occupation. Similarly the defendants in all the above suits shall demarcate and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document