Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 994
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
Sana Sumayya – Appellant
Versus
Layola Academy – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 2793 of 2024
Decided On : 10-10-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A. TEJASWI
For the Respondent: P ROY REDDY
A decree against a deceased party is a nullity; parties must be notified before altering decrees, and modifications filed after the limitation period are untenable.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 151 and 152 - Modification of decree after limitation - Trial Court permitted amendment to a judgment after 27 years claiming accidental omission; held that such amendment for a decree against a deceased party is a nullity. (Paras 10-12)
(B) Decree execution period - Limitation for executing a decree is 12 years; application for modification filed after the period is not tenable. The revision petitioner contends that the lower court’s judgment fails due to lack of notice to the parties and the death of a party before the order. (Paras 4-4.3)
(C) Authority of GPA holders - GPA holders must only operate within the authority granted and any agreement executed outside this scope is invalid. (Paras 8-8.4)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract, resulted in a decree in 1991. Application for modification regarding execution details was filed after 27 years which was challenged in revision.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order made without notice to deceased parties is invalid and remanded for fresh adjudication.
Issues: Whether the decree amendment was barred by limitation and if it was valid in light of the death of a party.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that decrees cannot be modified for accidental omissions after the limitation period, and an order against a deceased party is invalid.
Result: Revision Petition allowed; the trial court's order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition due to alleged clerical omission (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against modification of the decree based on limitation (Para 4) |
| 3. counterarguments supporting the amendment application (Para 6) |
| 4. challenges on maintainability and decree's validity (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's observation on the nullity of the order against a deceased person (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. final ratio that impugned order is nullity (Para 12) |
| 7. conclusion to remand the case for fresh adjudication (Para 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1. This Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.1104 of 2018 in O.S.No.494 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereunder the application filed under Section 151 r/w Section 152 CPC was allowed.
2. Heard Sri A.Venkatesh, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. A.Tejaswi, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner and Sri. D.V.Seetharam Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned counsel on record for respondents.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the present Revision Petition, are that respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.494 of 1991 for specific performance of contract of sale against respondent Nos.2 to 19 herein/defendants; that the General Power of Attorney holders of the defendants filed written statement admitting the suit claim and hence, the suit was decreed on 02.12.1991.
3.1. After a lapse of about 27 years from the date of passing of the said judgment and decree, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed the aforesaid application seeking modification of judgment and decree dated 02.12.1991 on the ground that the said judgment and decree did not contain the date and time of execution of the document and also the time limit within which the sale deed has to be executed. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties, allowed the said application on costs.
3.2. Aggrieved by the said order, this Revision Petition is filed by the revision petitioner, who is the legal heir of defendant No.5 in OS.No.494 of 1991.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 152 CPC contemplates amendment of decree only when there is clerical or arithmetic mistake or any accidental omission, however, it is not applicable to the cases which are barred by limitation; that non-stipulation of time for performance of contract does not ipso-facto give right to respondent No.1/plaintiff to seek amendment of the decree after expiry of limitation period of 12 years; that the plaintiff has to file an application for rectification of the decree within reasonable time as contemplated under Section 46 of the CONTRACT ACT and as such, the impugned order passed by the trial Court entertaining the application after lapse of 27 years from the date of decree is unsustainable. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the amendment sought for by respondent No.1/plaintiff is not an accidental slip or omission, for which the decree can be amended. Even assuming that the said action is an accidental slip, respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff ought to have approached the Court within reasonable time.
4.1. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the limitation for execution of the decree is twelve (12) years, whereas in the present case, the application for modification of decree was filed after 12 years, therefore,, the trial Court ought not to have entertained the same.
4.2. Learned senior counsel further contended that the trial Court ought to have verified whether any of the principals are alive or GPA is subsisting as the petition for amendment of Decree has been filed after long length of time. He further submitted that the impugned order was passed without notice to the parties, as such, the same is nullity, in view of the settled proposition of law that passing of order without notic
