Telangana High Court
Savitha Nair vs The Tahsildar on 19 July, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 748 of 2024
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 23.02.2024 in I.A. No. 14 of 2024 in O.S.No. 230 of 2023 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Kukatpally.
2. Heard Sri. G. Eshwaraiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
3. The petitioners herein had filed the main suit seeking to declare them as legal heirs of Late. Sri. Sudhir Sasikumar Nair, with a consequential declaration that the petitioners herein are the owners and possessors of the suit scheduled property. The said suit was partly allowed vide judgement and decree dated 06.12.2023, declaring the petitioners herein as legal heirs of Late. Sri. Sudhir Sasikumar Nair. However, the Trial Court while holding that the documentary evidence relied by the petitioners herein was 2 contradictory and that since boundaries were also not corroborating, declined to grant the consequential relief.
4. On the suit being decreed the petitioners herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application under Order 6 Rule 17, read with section 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') seeking to make amendments to the schedule of property in the plaint on the ground of oversight. The Trial Court had passed the impugned docket order dismissing the said application. Aggrieved by the same the present revision is preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below ought to have allowed the proposed amendments by considering that the same were omitted from the plaint due to oversight and that the same was a clerical error. In support of his contentions reliance is placed on the decision in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah Vs. Kalkonda Krishnaiah & Ors.1, and Rakesh Kumar & Ors Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors 2.
1 AIR 1974 AP 201 2 (2015) 111 ALR 541 3
6. I have taken note of the contentions urged.
7. At the outset, it is trite law that the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The High Court while entertaining its supervisory jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by the Trial Court. Interference is to be exercised only when the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, or manifest procedural irregularity or the Court passing such order lacks jurisdiction. It is equally well settled that interference in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be shown merely because another view is possible. (See: Trimbak Gangadhar Telang and Ors. Vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide and Ors 3, and Shalini Shyam Shetty and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil 4).
8. Further, it is trite law that the court passing a decree was empowered to correct clerical or arithmetic errors which slip or creep into the judgment by virtue of the errors in the documents 3 (1977) 2 SCC 437 4 (2010) 8 SCC 329 4 relied on by the parties (See: Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah's case (supra) and Rakesh Kumar's case (supra).
9. The plaint at hand reveals that the petitioners herein had claimed ownership to house property bearing municipal door number 8-4-376/25, 25/A/203, New Shastry Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad through a registered document No. 2480 of 2018 which was executed in the favor of the petitioner No.1 herein and her late husband. On perusing the said document with the schedule of property appended to the plaint, it is understood that the same only describes the property in part. Thus, the trial court on noticing the discrepancies in the recitals had declined to grant the consequential relief sought by the petitioners.
10. Thereafter, the petitioners herein proposed to amend the schedule of property in the decree, into two i.e., A & B scheduled property, on the ground that the suit scheduled property was only partly described due to oversight. It is pertinent to note that no further explanation is forthcoming with respect to why the same application could not be made any time before passing of the judgment and decree. Further, if it was a matter of oversight as 5 contended by the petitioners the same ought to have been realized during the time of tendering evidence in the suit, when the petitioner No.1 was required to establish her claim. Further, it is to be noted that, the proposed Schedule B property introduces an additional plea claiming title to Flat No. 203 in the suit scheduled property. The said plea is not reflected in the plaint. Thus, the proposed amendments are neither clerical nor arithmetic errors which slipped into the judgment by virtue of a mistake in the documents relied on by the parties as the document No. 2480 of 2018 reflects the schedule of two properties separately.
11. Though it can be contended that since the sale deed vide document No. 2480 of 2018 reflects Schedule B property along with schedule A property, if the proposed amendment is allowed by considering the same as a clerical error without including such an issue in the trial, there is a risk of causing prejudice to third parties and in-turn creating multiple litigation.
12. Therefore, taking into consideration a remedy of appeal is provided under the Code against the judgment and decree dated 6 06.12.2023, this Court deems it appropriate to leave the instant issue open.
13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petitions is dismissed.
14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 19.07.2024 VSV/MRKR