HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.332 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket endorsement dated 19.1.2022 in IA CF No.95 of 2022 in MVOP No.223 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi (for short, the Tribunal).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is claimant in MVOP No.223 of 2017 and the claim petition was decreed on 24.2.2021. As it is noticed that the surname of the petitioner as also his father was mentioned in the Decree and Judgment as "Madhu" instead of "Maddu", an application was filed to amend the surname in the decree and judgment, by rectifying the mistake. He submits that the said application was returned on 19.1.2022 with an endorsement "How this petition is maintainable at this stage for the amendment of MVOP, after disposal".
4. The learned counsel submits that the application seeking amendment of the decree and judgment was filed by the petitioner under Section 152 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same is maintainable. However, the Office of the Tribunal has returned the application without taking the said aspect into consideration and in such 2 circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court. He also submits that since it is only a typographical error, the learned Tribunal is empowered to make necessary corrections in the decree and judgment, and placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Sumit Krupaldas Valbani vs. the State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No.1050 of 2018, dated 31.10.2018, and the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt.Sangita, Civil Application (C.A.F.) No.837 of 2020 in First Appeal No.1212 of 2017, dated 27.2.2020.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
6. As could be seen from the docket endorsement, the I.A., filed by the petitioner was returned with office objection. In such circumstances, it is open for the petitioner to comply the office objection and in the event the office is not satisfied with the same, a request can as well be made to place the matter before the Court "For Orders" on the office objection. It appears that the said procedure was not followed.
7. Be that as it may. This Court is of the opinion that the office objection can as well be complied with by the petitioner 3 and a request can be made to hear the matter, in the event the Office of the Tribunal is not satisfied with the compliance.
8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to re-present the I.A., by answering/complying with the objection and in the event of the petitioner adopting such a procedure, the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi shall consider the same by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the office objection. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
9. The Registry is directed to return the original I.A., along with the other relevant material, to enable the petitioner to present the same before the appropriate Court.
________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J April 20, 2022.
Note:
Dispatch order copy in one week.
(By order) vasu