Back
Orissa High Court
S. K. RAY, AND S. ACHARYA, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Sudhir Kumar Ray - Respondents
Civil Review No. 17 of 1971 in A. H. O. No. 1 of 1971 (See ILR (1972) Cut 169)
Decided On : 11 February 1974
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 152 - AMENDMENT OF DECREE - INTEREST ON FUTURE SALARY - ERROR IN DECREE - JURISDICTION OF APPELLATE COURT TO AMEND DECREE - REVIEW - GROUNDS FOR REVIEW - "ANY OTHER SUFFICIENT REASON" - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs, the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the appellate court allowed the appeal and granted the plaintiff certain reliefs, including future salary without interest. However, the decree drawn up by the ministerial officers of the court erroneously included interest at 12% per annum on the future salary. The plaintiff filed a review application and an application under Section 152 C.P.C. for amendment of the decree to rectify the error.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the review application was not maintainable as the jurisdiction to hear the review petition had come to an end upon the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court. However, the court held that the error in the decree could be corrected under Section 152 C.P.C. as it was a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission.
Issues: 1. Whether the review application was maintainable after the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court? 2. Whether the error in the decree could be corrected under Section 152 C.P.C.? 3. Which court had the jurisdiction to amend the decree?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the review application was not maintainable as the jurisdiction to hear the review petition had come to an end upon the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court. The court relied on the principles laid down in Veluri Sitaramasastry v. Isukapalli Sundaramma, Shiva Jute Baling Ltd. v. Hindley and Co. Ltd., and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The court held that the error in the decree could be corrected under Section 152 C.P.C. as it was a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission. The court relied on the principles laid down in Manakchand v. Manoharlal, Somasundaram Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, Swire: Mellor v. Swire, and Sagua Barik v. Bichinta Barik. 3. The court held that the appellate Division Bench of the High Court which disposed of the appeal had the jurisdiction to amend and rectify the decree in the appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review application but allowed the application for amendment of the decree. The decree was amended by deleting the words "With interest at the rate of 12 p. c. p. a." from the paragraph of the decree.
Judgement
S. K. RAY, J. :- Two applications have been filed in the aforesaid A. H. O. No. 1 of 1971. One application is under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for review of the judgment passed in the aforesaid A. H. O. for the purpose of setting aside part of the decree passed in F. A. No. 98 of 1964 regarding grant of interest on future salary. The other application is one under Section 152 C. P. C. for the identical relief of amendment of the decree in F. A. No. 98 of 1964 which was merged in the, appellate decree passed in A. H. O. No. 1 of 1971, in the alternative. Both these applications have been heard together as the relief claimed in them is essentially the same.
2. For appreciating the need of filing the aforesaid two applications it is necessary to recount shortly the background litigation. The opp. party No. 1 filed his suit against the petitioner and the other pro forma opposite parties for the following reliefs:
(a) For a declaration that the decision of reversion of the plaintiff as communicated to defendants Nos. 7, 9 and 10 and subsequent intimation to the plaintiff and consequential order of defendant No. 10 posting the plaintiff to Banki is void, inoperative and ultra vires and unconstitutional.
(b) For payment of arrears of pay to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as per schedule below and also future monthly salary with increment and other benefits as would have been accrued to the plaintiff had the plaintiff not been reverted (for which court-fee will be paid hereafter).
(c) For permanent injunction against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 not to give effect to the said invalid order of reversion.
(d) For payment of damage of Rs. 3/- at the rate of one rupee each to the Plaintiff against defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and a damage of Rs. 300/- by defendant No 5 or against any other defendant or defendants who may be adjudged liable according to the decision of the Court.
(e) For costs of the suit incurred by the plaintiff against defendant Nos. 1 to 5; and
(f) For any other relief the plaintiff may be entitled to.
(The claim for monetary damage against defendants Nos. 2 to 5 as given in notice under Section 80. Civil P. C. has been reduced). The schedule referred to in relief (b) is schedule A to the plaint. This is extracted hereinbelow:-
Schedule A
Leave salary and half average pay for 3 days, i. e. 29th 30th and 31st October, 1960 @ Rs. 173,04 n. p. per month .... Rs. 16.75 nP
Interest @ 12 % P. a. for one month from 1-11-60 to 30-11-60 ......Rs. 0.21 nP
Leave salary @ half average pay for the month of November, 1960 ..... . Rs. 173.04 nP Total Rs. 190.00
3. It is clear from the aforesaid extracts from the plaint that the plaintiff never claimed any interest at all on his future salary which would accrue to him since after the month of November, 1960 onwards.
4. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff-opposite party, thereupon, preferred F. A. No. 98 of 1964 which was heard by a Single Judge of this Court and allowed. The appellate Court in para 25 of its judgment enumerated the reliefs to which he found the plaintiff to be entitled. The reliefs granted were (to quote the words of the appellate Judge):-
"The order of revision is declared void. The plaintiff must be deemed to be continuing in the post he held when the order of reversion came to be passed and he would be entitled to his salary as claimed excluding Rs. 190/- in Sch. A of the plaint. He would also be entitled to future salary as prayed for on payment of the proper court fee as undertaken by him in paragraph 47 of the plaint. The plaintiff is at liberty to execute the decree for future salary upto date on payment of the proper court fee. There would be no decree for damages as the plaintiff has not been able to establish his claim of damages. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 are restrained from continuing to give effect to the order of reversion. The plaintiff would be also entitled to his costs
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
