@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 18-6-2009 in I.A.No.241/2009 in O.S.No.126/2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil
Judge, Madhira. The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for recovery of certain amount from the respondents towards the liability incurred by
the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said suit was decreed exparte on 20-11-2006 in the following terms:
1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 68,800/- with costs and future interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs. 40,000/- from the date of filing
of the suit till the date of realization.
2. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4416-00 towards costs of the suit.
2. I.A.No.241/2009 was filed by the respondents for amendment of the said decree on the plea that there is an accidental slip and omission in the
decree. The respondents sought for addition of the words to the decree to the effect that the decree shall be executed against the estate, if any, left
by the principal Late Paleti Krishna Rao, and in possession of the respondents. This application was allowed by the lower Court, by amending
Clause (1) of the decree as under:
1. That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 68,800/- with costs and future interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs. 40,000/- from the date of filing
of the suit till the date of realization from out of the properties of the deceased P. Krishna Rao.
2. That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4416-00 towards costs of the suit.
3. u/s 152 of the of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ""CPC"") clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or
errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application
of any of the parties. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the decree as originally made,
nor any accidental slip or omission could be deciphered therein. The lower Court appears to have proceeded on the premise that since the
respondents represent the estate of the deceased, their liability is confined to the extent of the properties left by the deceased and in their
occupation. While in law this position may be correct, the addition of the words having the effect of restricting the respondents'' liability to the
estate left by the deceased, amounts to amendment of the decree. Such an amendment of the decree does not fall within the scope of Section 152
CPC. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower Court cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set-aside. However, the
respondents shall be free to question the decree in accordance with law, if they feel aggrieved thereby. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly
allowed.
