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
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.
AIR 1974 AP 201
(2015) 111 ALR 541
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
(1977) 2 SCC 437
(2010) 8 SCC 329
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
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
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
