M. Manohar vs Dhiveti Muragaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 1896 AP

           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

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

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