Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
S. Hari - Appellant
Versus
S. Mohan & Others - Respondents
CRP (NPD)No. 4559 of 2014 & CMP Nos. 19662 & 20350 of 2018 & MP No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 11-06-2019
For the Petitioner:S. Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for J. Ramakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Bakthavachalu, S.I. Muthiah, Advocates.
The need for the Trial Court to provide reasons for allowing or rejecting amendments and the limitation of Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code in addressing amendments that change the outcome of a final decree.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure Code - Section 152
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought amendments to the final decree in a partition suit, some of which were allowed and some were rejected by the Trial Court. The respondents objected to certain amendments, claiming they would change the outcome of the final decree.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Trial Court did not provide reasons for disallowing certain amendments and therefore remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the disallowed amendments.
Issues: Whether the amendments sought were to correct clerical or typographical mistakes, and whether the Trial Court provided sufficient reasoning for disallowing certain amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for the Trial Court to provide reasons for allowing or rejecting amendments and held that amendments changing the outcome of the final decree should be addressed through an appeal rather than under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside only in respect of the disallowed amendments, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter within a specified period.
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the fair and decretal order dated 09.07.2014 made in I.A. No.83 of 2014 (I.A. No.156 of 2012) in O.S. No.17 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court, Arakkonam in so far as against the petitioner, in respect of disallowed portion of his prayer sought for in said I.A. Is concerned.)
1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam in I.A. No.83 of 2014 in O.S. No.17 of 2004.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant Revision Petition are as follows:-
2. The petitioners in I.A. No.83 of 2014 are the defendants 1 and 3 in the suit O.S. No.17 of 2004 filed by the 1 and 2 respondents, who are the plaintiffs. The suit was filed by the respondents for partition against the petitioners as well as the other defendants. A preliminary decree was passed and thereafter, a final decree dated 02.01.2012 was passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.17 of 2004. Subsequent to the passing of the final decree, the petitioner, who is the 3rd defendant in the suit along with his father A. Sriramulu Naidu, who is the first defendant in the suit filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the final decree, dated 02.01.2012 on the ground that there are clerical and typographical mistakes as well as accidental omissions in the final decree. The petitioner has listed out various amendments, which he is seeking in his affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.83 of 2014 filed under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code.
3. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the suit stating that the application filed by the petitioners discloses not only clerical and typing errors but also seeks for correction of the decision of the Court on certain points. Apart from that in respect of certain amendments sought for by the petitioner, they have stated no objection for allowing the same.
4. The Trial Court by its order dated 09.07.2014 in I.A. No.83 of 2014 has partly allowed the application by permitting the amendment sought for by the petitioners in Sl. Nos. 1 to 5, 12, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25, holding that they are typographical errors and in respect of other amendments sought for in the petition, the same were rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that they are not clerical, typographical errors or omissions and held that if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, his only remedy is to file an appeal in respect of those amendments. Aggrieved by the disallowed amendments in I.A. No.83 of 2014 in O.S. No.17 of 2004, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. Heard Mr. S. Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. K. Bakthavachalu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. S.I. Muthiah, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
6. The only point for consideration in this revision is whether the amendments sought for in I.A. No.83 of 2014 in O.S. No.17 of 2004 are to correct the clerical or typographical mistakes that had allegedly crept in the final decree or whether there was omission or any accidental slip made by the Trial Court while passing the final decree.
7. This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.83 of 2014 as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Several amendments have been sought for under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner herein. In the counter affidavit, the 1 and 2 respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit have infact stated no objection for certain amendments sought for by the petitioners. The first and second respondents have no objection for amending the mistakes sought for by the petitioners in paragraph 8 (1) to (7), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), First portion of paragraph (23) para
