HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
C.R.P.No.3800 of 2017
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in I.A.S.R.No.3088 of 2015 in M.V.O.P.No.265 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he filed impugned application in IASR.No.3088 of 2015 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to correct the name of second petitioner as "Manda Rani" by deleting the existing name of "Manda Ravi" and to carry out consequential amendments wherever it reflects in the above M.V.O.P. proceedings. The trial Court erroneously returned the said application on improper reasoning under impugned order. As such, assailing the said orders, the present civil revision petition is filed and prayed to set aside the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the trial Court has rightly held that MVOP.No.265 of 1996 was decided on merits and the appeal was preferred before this Court in 2 CMA.No.1581 of 1998 and the same was also dismissed on 08.07.2003. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that correction if any has to be done by the appellate Court, but not by the trial Court. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. A perusal of the record would disclose that OP.No.265 of 1996 was disposed by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Karimnagar vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.1998. The said O.P was filed on the ground that one Manda Sathaiah, aged about 30 years died in APSRTC bus accident occurred on 20.08.1995. The wife, minor children and parents of deceased Sathaiah claimed compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs under various heads. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration of the material available on record, held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,53,600/- towards compensation. Against the said award, CMA.No.1581 of 1998 was filed by respondent No.2 before this Court and this Court by order dated 08.07.2003 dismissed the appeal.
5. While so, the revision petitioner filed the present application in O.P.No.265 of 1996 for amendment of the name of second 3 petitioner as 'Manda Rani' by deleting the existing name of 'Manda Ravi'. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is stated that in the second week of August, 2015, when the petitioner approached her Advocate for filing a petition for declaring her daughter in the main case as major, she came to know that her daughter's name was noted in the main OP as 'Manda Ravi' instead of 'Manda Rani' inadvertently due to typographical error. It is also stated that she has no male issues, but only two daughters and elder daughter's name is 'Manda Rani'. She has filed family member certificate and SSC certificate of her daughter showing the name of her daughter as 'Manda Rani'.
6. The trial Court relying upon the judgments of this Court in Ameena Bee v. Aisha Katoon1 and Pinepe Mallamma v. Kunche Chinna Mangamma2 held that the amendment sought to be ordered cannot be ordered by it in view of merger of judgment of this Court in judgment of this Court in CMA.No.1581 of 1998.
7. The Apex Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala at para No.44 held that (i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against 1 1998 (1) APLJ 90 2 2001 (3) Law Summary 422 4 an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law.; (iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter.
5
8. In the light of above decision and the decisions relied on by the trial Court, which are rightly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, while passing the impugned order, it has rightly held that it is only the appellate court has got power to make any correction and can be done only by it, but not by the trial Court.
9. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court, as the award passed by the trial Court is merged in the decision of this Court in CMA.No.1581 of 1998 dated 08.07.2003 and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file application in CMA.No.1581 of 1998 seeking permission for necessary amendment. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 24.03.2023 Nvl 6