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

1972 Supreme(Ori) 3

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Misra, J.
PAPU KHAN - Appellant
Versus
FATIMA BABI - Respondent
Civil Revn.  129  Of  1969
Decided On : JANUARY 03, 1972

Advocates Appeared:
G.G.DAS, S.C.GHOSH

The Court cannot exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Civil P. C. to circumvent the express provisions of the Code.

Headnote:

PARTITION SUIT - AMENDMENT OF FINAL DECREE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - INHERENT POWERS - SECTIONS 151 AND 152, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - REVIEW - ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD.

Fact of the Case:

In a partition suit, the preliminary decree determined the share of defendant No. 1 in the Kha Schedule land as 65/288, while his share in the landlord's interest described in schedule Ga which included the Kha Schedule land was determined at Rs.-/12/-. A commissioner was appointed to divide the properties in accordance with the shares determined in the preliminary decree. The commissioner in his report erroneously allotted Rs.-/12/- interest both in Schedules Kha and Ga to defendant no. 1. As no objection appears to have been raised to the allotments made by the commissioner, the Court below accepted the same and passed the final decree on 2-11-1968. Plaintiff No. 1 moved the Court under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C. for amendment of the final decree by correcting the share allotted to defendant No. 1 as 65/288 in the Kha Schedule land on the ground that the final decree is not in accordance with the shares allotted in the preliminary decree.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned order of the Court below is unworkable and has the effect of wiping out the entire final decree proceeding, a relief not sought by plaintiff No. 1. The Court further held that plaintiff No. 1 not having filed an appeal or applied for review of the final decree passed, the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in purported exercise of powers under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C. which has the effect of setting aside the final decree.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court below had jurisdiction to amend the final decree under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C.? 2. Whether the Court below could treat the application of plaintiff No. 1 as one for review and dispose it of on merits?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Court below had no jurisdiction to amend the final decree under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C. as the impugned order has the effect of setting aside the final decree and plaintiff No. 1 had not filed an appeal or applied for review of the final decree passed. 2. The Court held that it was open to the Court below to treat the application of plaintiff No. 1 as one for review and dispose it of on merits as the error in respect of the share in the Kha Schedule land is apparent on the face of the record.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision, set aside the impugned order and directed that the case be remanded to the trial Court to consider the application filed by plaintiff No. 1 as one for review of the final decree on payment of further court-fee, if necessary and consideration of the question of limitation, if any, and dispose it of on merits.

A. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed by defendant No. 1 in a partition suit against an order allowing amendment of the final decree.

( 2 ) THE preliminary decree in a partition suit registered as T. S. No. 29 of 1951 filed by opposite party Nos. 1 to 9 against the present petitioner and others was passed on 29-8-1953 determining the shares of the respective parties. In T. A. No. 160 of 1953, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were confirmed on 25-1-1957. According to the preliminary decree, the share of defendant No. 1 in the Kha schedule land was determined as 62/288. He, however, was to be allotted Rs. / 12/- share in the landlord's interest described in the Ga Schedule which was also included in the Kha Schedule. In the final decree proceeding, a Commissioner was appointed to divide the properties according to the shares determined in the preliminary decree. The Commissioner submitted his report erroneously allotting rs.-/12/- interest in the Kha Schedule land to the defendant No. 1. As no objection was filed, the Commissioner's report was accepted and Court passed the final decree on 2-11-1968 in terms of the allotments made by the Commissioner. Plaintiff No. 1 moved the Court under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C. for amendment of the final decree by correcting the share allotted to defendant No. 1 as 65/288 in the Kha Schedule land on the ground that the final decree is not in accordance with the shares allotted in the preliminary decree and Basir Khan (plaintiff No. 4) who was looking after the suit being ill could not file objection to the Commissioner's report which led to the inadvertent error creeping into the final decree. This was registered as Misc. Case No. 506 of 1968. The prayer of plaintiff No. 1 was resisted by defendant No. 1 on the ground that due service of notice had been effected on plaintiff No. 4 before passing of the final decree and that the Court has no jurisdiction to amend the final decree under Section 151 or 152, Civil P. C. The learned Munsif holding that the Court has inherent power to amend or vary the final decree which is not in accordance with the preliminary decree passed an order that the final decree be corrected according to the preliminary decree. It is this order which is under challenge in the present revision.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner assails the impugned order on the following grounds: (1) The order of the Court below is unworkable and has the effect of wiping out the entire final decree proceeding, a relief not sought by plaintiff No. 1 and (2) plaintiff No. 1 not having filed an appeal or applied for review of the final decree passed, the Court below had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in purported exercise of powers under Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C. which has the effect of setting aside the final decree. For opposite parties, on the other hand, it is contended that in the present case the final decree which was passed was not in accordance with the preliminary decree, and therefore, the Court below had power in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to amend it and bring it in accord with the directions in the preliminary decree. Secondly, it is argued that even if it is found that the Court below exceeded its jurisdiction, it will not justify interference in revision when real and substantial justice has been done. Lastly, it is argued that in any view of the matter, it was open to the Court below to treat the application of plaintiff No. 1 as one for review and grant relief on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. The respective contentions require careful examination.

( 4 ) THE first contention of the petitioner is a substantial one. The following facts are not seriously disputed: A preliminary decree for partition was passed on 29-81953 wherein the share of defendant No. 1 in the Kha Schedule land was determined to be 65/288, while his share in the landlord's interest described in schedule Ga which inclu






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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