Smt. M Shyamala, Karimnagar Dist vs Bandi Yellaiah, Nizamabad Dist ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1402 Tel

       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

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

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

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.

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