Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Pulla Rao vs M. Venkateswara Rao on 21 December, 2022
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.1116 of 2019
ORDER:
This revision, under Section 115 CPC, is preferred against the
order, dated 25.01.2019, passed in I.A.No.1321 of 2018 in
O.S.No.75 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge,
Avanigadda, filed under Sections 151 and 152 to amend the decree
by attaching the claim B schedule property to the decree.
2. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri Y. Ramatirtha, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.
3. The suit is filed for partition in which the defendant filed
counter claim. In fact, no issue No.3 was framed. However, the
counter claim was dealt with by framing point for consideration at
para No.19 as follows:
"Now, an important question for consideration is whether
the counter claim schedule properties can be partitioned as
prayed by the defendant?
And, while passing the judgment, the trial Court observed in para
29, on issue No.3, as follows:
"Issue no.3. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the
plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.75 of 2009 are alone can
be partitioned; this Court makes it clear that the counter claim,
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.1116 of 2019
schedule properties cannot be partitioned as prayed for
defendant. I find this issue accordingly."
However, in the result portion in para No.30 of the judgment, the
trial Court did not mention regarding disposal of counter claim and
it dealt with only result in the suit regarding passing of preliminary
decree and mesne profits. Thus, the decree was drafted only in
respect of the suit reliefs and no such decree was drafted in relation
to dismissal of counter claim.
4. When the defendant preferred appeal against dismissal of
counter claim, the appeal was not numbered by the appellate court
for want of filing the copy of the decree. Then, the defendant filed
I.A.No.1321 of 2018 to include the counter claim 'B' schedule
property in the decree prepared in respect of the suit reliefs. As
such, the trial Court passed the order impugned in the revision
holding that the decree relating to counter claim 'B' schedule
property cannot be attached to the decree in O.S.No.75 of 2009,
and therefore, the application is misconceived and must fail.
5. It is noticed that since no express result was passed in para
No.30 of the judgment in relation to dismissal of counter claim
though a finding is given in para No.29, no separate decree was
drafted in relation to dismissal of counter claim. Instead of asking
the trial Court to amend the judgment incorporating the result in
relation to counter claim and praying separate decree for counter
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.1116 of 2019
claim, the defendant prayed only to attach the 'B' schedule property
to the decree in relation to the suit reliefs.
6. Both the judgment in O.S.No.75 of 2009 and the order in
I.A.No.1321 of 2018 were passed by the same Presiding Officer.
When an inconsistency is noticed, the trial Court ought to have
corrected the error instead of dismissing the petition.
7. Section 152 CPC empowers a Court to amend the judgments,
decrees or orders on its own motion or on an application of any of
the parties, when there are arithmetic mistakes or errors arising
from any accidental slip or omission.
8. In the present case, there is an accidental omission in
incorporating the result on 'counter claim' in the judgment in
O.S.No.75 of 2009 and consequently, no decree was drafted.
Therefore, it is for the trial Court to correct the result portion in the
judgment, dated 20.09.2018, passed in O.S.No.75 of 2009 and the
counter claim therein suitably be incorporated in consonance with
the finding in para No.29 and thereafter, draft a separate decree in
relation to the counter claim as well.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting
aside the order, dated 25.01.2019, of the Senior Civil Judge,
Avanigadda, passed in I.A.No.1321 of 2018 in O.S.No.75 of 2009
and the trial Court is directed to correct the result portion in the
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.1116 of 2019
judgment, dated 20.09.2018, passed in O.S.No.75 of 2009, duly
incorporating the finding on the counter claim suitably in
consonance with the finding in para No.29, and thereafter, draft a
separate decree in relation to the counter claim as well.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision shall
stand closed.
_________________
B. S. BHANUMATHI, J
21-12-2022
RAR
