Piyaratana Unnanse Et Al., V. Wahareke Sounttara Unnanse Et Al.,

[IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL]

1950 Present: Lord Simonds, Lord MacDermott, Lord Reid and
Sir John Beaumont

PIYARATANA UNNANSE et al., Appellants, and WAHAREKE SONUTTARA UNNANSE et al., Respondents

Privy Council Appeal No. 20 of 1948

S. C. 289-D. C. Kandy, 45,415

Amendment of decree-Power of District Court to amend its own decree-"Narrow compass of such power-Civil Procedure Code. s. 189 (1).

Application under section 189 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code was made to a District Judge to amend a decree entered by his predecessor on the basis of an alleged variance between the judgment of the court and the decree based upon it. The contention of the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs, was that the decree omitted to give them the right to certain land edged green on a plan produced in the case, whereas, according to their contention, the judgment on which such decree was based, if it was read as a whole, had conceded such right.

Held, that unless the variance between the judgment and the decree appeared on a perusal of the judgment and decree the District Court had no power to amend its own decree. A matter involving the construction of the judgment could not fall within section 189 of the Civil Procedure Code.

APPEAL against a decree of the Supreme Court. Stephen Chapman, for plaintiffs appellants.

Cecil Havers, K.C., with R. K. Handoo, for defendants respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 18, 1950. [Delivered by SIR JOHN BEAUMONT]-

This is an appeal against a decree of the Supreme Court of Ceylon dated the 17th May, 1944, setting aside an Order of the District Court of Kandy, dated the 22nd March, 1943, whereby a decree of the said District Court, dated the 6th February, 1941, in favour of the appellants was directed to be amended in the manner specified.

The power of a court in Ceylon to amend its own Order is conferred by section 189 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code which is in the following terms :

The court may at any time, either on its own motion or on that of any of the parties, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in any judgment or order or any error arising therein from any-accidental slip or omission, or may make any amendment which is. necessary to bring a decree into conformity with the judgment.

In the application giving rise to this appeal the contention of the appellants was that the decree of the District Court dated the 6th February, 1941, omitted to give to the appellants the right to certain land edged green on " Spencer's Plan " hereinafter mentioned, whereas, according to the contention of the appellants, the judgment on which such decree was based had conceded such right. The learned District Judge before whom the said application came, who was not the same judge as the one who had passed the decree, accepted the contention of the appellants, and amended accordingly the decree passed by his predecessor. In appeal the Supreme Court held that the judgment upon which the decree of the 6th February, 1941, was based had decided against the title of the appellants to the said land, and that there was no case for amending the decree.

The first question which arises for decision by the Board is whether the learned District Judge had any power on the application before him to amend the decree of his predecessor. If this question be answered, as their Lordships think it must be, against the appellants, the appeal must fail, and it is unnecessary to determine any other question.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute. The litigation started in the District Court of Kandy on the 4th July, 1934. The parties were all Buddhist priests and the question in issue related to the ownership and right to possession of a monastic building known as the " Meda Pansala " as appurtenant to a larger monastic temple known as Degaldoruwa Vihare. The plaint did not describe the property claimed b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document