Panguluru Pullappa Naidu and Others vs Lakku Venkatanarappa Reddi and Others

This is a revision petition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nellore, allowing an amendment of the decree in A. S. No. 162

of 1944 on the file of his Court. The respondent''s counsel takes a preliminary objection to the filing of this civil revision petition on the ground that

the remedy of the petitioner was by way of an appeal from the amended decree and that this civil revision petition is therefore incompetent.

In Narayanaswami v. Natesa, 16 Mad. 424, it was held by this Court that an order allowing an amendment of a decree was open to revision,

although the decree, as amended, was appeal-able; but this view was not accepted in Viswanathan Chetti v. Ramanathan Chetti, 24 Mad. 646 by

the Division Bench. In Bhagirathi v. Minakshi, (1917) 31 M. L. J. 438 :A. I. R. 1917 Mad. 599 it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that in

exceptional cases an order allowing an amendment of a decree could be interfered with in revision by this Court though in that case the trial Court

amended, without jurisdiction, a decree of the appellate Court. In Koka Adinarayana Rao naidu Vs. Koka Kothandaramayya Naidu and Others, .

Wadsworth J. referred to the earlier decisions and was inclined to the view that the High Court would not ordinarily entertain a revision petition,

When a remedy by way of appeal was available against the amended decree, but in very special circumstances, it would be open to the High

Court to do so. Though opinion was oscillating in this Court till 1940, still, as a result of a series of decisions given with reference to Madras Act

IV [4] of 1938, it has become the settled view of this Court that an order allowing an amendment of a decree is not liable to revision and that the

remedy of the aggrieved party is only by way of an appeal, Vide, PS. AR. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar by agent, Sivaraman Chettiar Vs.

Govindaswami Goundan, and Garimalla Sitaramamurti Vs. Thamma Lakshminarayanamurti and Others, . These decisions have been followed by

Horwill J. in Katikara Simhagiri Dora alias Latchanna Dora and Others Vs. Sri Vyricherla Chandramani Pattamahadevi Zemindarini of Chemudu,

where all the earlier cases are reviewed by the learned Judge and the conclusion has been arrived that an order amending a decree so as to bring it

into conformity with the judgment is not revisable u/s 115 of the Code as an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal against the amended

decree is available. I must follow these later decisions and hold that the present civil revision petition is not sustainable.

Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami applies for leave to convert this civil revision petition into a regular appeal on payment of the court-fee payable on the

amended decree sought to be appealed against. I grant him a month''s time for taking the necessary steps for so doing.

[This petition having been posted for being mentioned the Court delivered the following judgment :]

The appellants have not chosen to apply for conversion of this civil revision petition into an appeal or pay the requisite court-fee. This civil revision

petition is therefore dismissed with costs.