Kadama Radha Krishna Died vs Sri Venkateswara Swamy Agro Industries
2024 Latest Caselaw 571 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 571 AP
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Kadama Radha Krishna Died vs Sri Venkateswara Swamy Agro Industries on 12 January, 2024

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
                   AMARAVATI

       FRIDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY
         TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                        PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE
                  MANDAVA

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 987 OF 2019

Between:

  1. Kadama Radha Krishna (Died)

  2. Kadama Lakshmi Bai,
     W/o. Late Radha Krishna, Aged 53 years,
     R/o. D.No.18/473, Near Good Shed,
     Gudivada, Krishna District.

  3. Kadama Naga Babu,
     S/o. Late Radha Krishna, Aged 30 years,
     R/o. D.No.18/473, Near Good Shed,
     Gudivada, Krishna District.

  4. Kadama Kiran Babu,
     S/o. Late Radha Krishna, Aged 26 years,
     R/o. D.No.18/473, Near Good Shed,
     Gudivada, Krishna District.

  5. Kadama Tulasi Mukunda Devi,
     D/o. Late Radha Krishna, Aged 22 years,
     R/o. D.No.18/473, Near Good Shed,
     Gudivada, Krishna District.
                                               ...Petitioners
                           AND

  1. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Agro Industries,
     Rep. by its Managing Partner,
                                   2




           Kodama Brahmaji, S/o Nagaiah,
           Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business,
           D.No.16/887/19, Balaji Talkies Road,
           Gudivada, Krishna District.

      2. Kodama Brahmaji,
         S/o. Nagaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business,
         R/o. D.No.16/887/19, Balaji Talkies Road,
         Gudivada, Krishna District.
                                               ...Respondents

 Counsel for the Petitioner(s)    :   Sri P.Srinivasulu

 Counsel for the Respondents :        -

 ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of

CPC, challenging the order dated 01.03.2019 in I.A. No.1034/2018

in I.A. No.1616/2011 in O.S. No.110/1999 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

2. Through the subject I.A., the petitioners sought

rectification of a mistake, that, according to the petitioners have

crept in the order. The petitioners contend that during the final

decree proceeding, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for

settlement of accounts and submit a report. At that stage, when a

dispute arose as regards to the scope of warrant that was issued to

the Advocate Commissioner, it is represented that they checked

the decree and noticed a mistake. According to the

petitioners/plaintiffs, their submission as stated in the affidavit of

I.A., is as under:-

"Then my counsel verified the plaint, decree and judgment, dt.01.11.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Court and informed to us that, even though in prayer portion it was mentioned in Column (a) prayer portion in plaint for distribution of the assets of the 1st defendant firm to the plaintiff in proportion to his share of 0-30 paise, the same prayer was not mentioned in the Decree and Judgment, dt.01.11.2006 due to mistake. The suit was decreed totally but in the decree the total prayer in plaint not covered due to mistake and oversight, we were advised to move an application for amendment of Decree, dt. 01.11.2006 to get the relief of "distribution of assets of the 1st defendant firm to us as per our share".

3. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application

filed by the petitioners, as nature of the amendment sought by the

petitioners cannot be permitted under the provisions of

Section 152 CPC.

4. Heard, the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri P. Srinivasulu.

5. This Court is of the view that, under the provision of

Section 152 of C.P.C., only, a mistake which is apparent from the

record is rectifiable. If it is found that a mistake which is sought to

be rectified, involves a long drawn process, the said mistake

cannot be construed as a mistake apparent from the record.

According to the petitioners, though at „prayer‟ portion of the plaint

at Para No.13(a), a relief was sought for distribution of assets of

the 1st defendant Firm, to the plaintiff, in proportion to his share of

0-30 paise by mistake, the said prayer was not mentioned in the

decree and judgment.

6. The plaintiffs have sought the following relief at Para

No.13(a) of the plaint, which is extracted hereunder:

"13. The plaintiff, therefore prays that the Honourable Court may be pleased:

a) To grant a decree for dissolution of the 1st defendant firm and distribution of the assets of the 1st defendant firm to the plaintiff in proportion to his share of 0-30 paise (thirty paise) and also a decree for settlement of accounts among the partners and pay the share of his profits in proportion to his 0-

30 paise share."

7. The submissions of the petitioners/plaintiffs cannot

be countenanced, in as much as, as observed from the order of the

learned trial Judge, there is no discussion/observation in the

entire judgment either of the trial Court or of the First Appellate

Court, regarding distribution of assets of the Firm in favour of the

petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners might have asked for certain

"specific relief", if the same is not granted, the petitioners are at

liberty to seek appropriate remedies available under law. But

seeking rectification of the order on the pretext of "mistake" is not

the remedy. In that view of the matter, this Court, therefore do not

find any merit to interfere with the order under Revision.