Sunita Buty vs Allahabad Bank

C.L. Pangarkar, J.—This revision is preferred by the judgment debtors defendants in Civil Suit No. 105 of 1972 against the order on application u/s 152, Civil Procedure Code. The facts giving rise to the revision are as follows:

Allahabad Bank had advanced a loan to the defendant Vasudeo for Rs.64,825.08 on the basis of the deposit of title deeds. Since the amount was not paid a suit came to be instituted. The defendant did not contest the suit. As a result preliminary decree was passed by the Court and while passing the decree the Court ordered that defendant should pay interest at 6% on the sum of Rs.50,000.

Subsequently final decree proceedings were taken up and a final decree also came to be passed in 1974.

In 1999 plaintiff-Allahabad Bank made an application for correction of the decree on the ground that decree was not drawn in accordance with final order passed by the Court in Civil Suit No. 105/72 and as such prayed for amendment of the decree. In the preliminary decree that was passed by the Court the Ministerial Officer of the Court had failed to mention that defendant should pay 6% interest on the amount of Rs.50,000. It is on account of this that an amendment to the decree was sought. The learned Judge of the lower Court allowed the application negativing the contentions raised by the defendant that the amendment has been sought after lapse of so many years. Being aggrieved by the order passed, allowing the application this revision has been preferred.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondent. The copy of the judgment passed shows that Court has awarded interest on sum of Rs.50,000 at the rate of 15% from the date of suit till realization. Decree was not drawn in accordance with this order of the Court. Obviously Decree must always be in consonance with the order passed by the Court in the Civil Suit. That mistake in drawing up the decree can be corrected by the Court at any time u/s 152, Civil Procedure Code.

Learned Counsel for the judgment debtor contended that the power u/s 152, CPC cannot be exercised by the Court in order to add or subtract from any relief granted earlier and he relied on a case reported in M/s. Plasto Pack, Mumbai and Another Vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., . The ruling as cited by the learned Counsel has no bearing to the case before me, inasmuch as plaintiff is not claiming any addition or subtraction from any relief that was earlier granted. What he has sought is that the decree must conform to the final order passed by the Court while delivering the judgment.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the application is barred by limitation. It is stated by the Counsel for the respondent that the decree is still under execution. There is, therefore, no question of application being barred by law of limitation. I, therefore, see no substance in the revision. It is dismissed.