AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—Inveighing the order dated 28.09.2007, passed by the First Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Chenglepet, in I.A. No. 65 of 2008 in O.S. No. 364 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.
A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell. It appears the defendants 2 to 7 filed the written statement. However subsequently, the defendants remained ex parte and accordingly ex parte decree was passed by the Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 993 of 2005 u/s 94(e) read with Sections 151 and 152 of CPC seeking the following relief:
To amend the decree and judgment dated 09.09.2005 passed in the above suit by deleting the interest imposed at 9% per annum on the balance of sale consideration or impose 6% per annum interest instead of 9% per annum interest.
The lower Court after dispensing with notice to the defendants, reduced the said 9% interest per annum referred to in the decree to 7.5% per annum. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, this revision has been filed on various grounds inter alia thus:
The lower Court had no jurisdiction to amend the decree, on the I.A. filed u/s 94(e) read with Sections 151 and 152 of CPC, as those provisions would not contemplate any such reviewing of the very earlier part of the judgment.
Despite printing the names concerned, none appeared.
A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers and the copy of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and display, portray and evince that the defendants remained absent and hence they were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed as set out supra. However the plaintiff having been dissatisfied with the awarding of interest at 9% per annum on the sale consideration yet to be payable by him so as to get the sale deed executed in his favour from the defendants, filed I.A. virtually for reviewing the decision of the Court in awarding the interest and in the alternative for the reduction of the interest. It is ex facie and prima facie clear and pellucid so to say as clear as day that the prayer of the plaintiff is one for reviewing a part of the judgment of the lower Court and in such a case, without resorting to Section 114 of C.P.C. read with Order 47 of CPC, the plaintiff simply invoked Section 94(e) read with Sections 151 and 152 of CPC, the scope of such provision Section is only to get corrected typographical errors and clerical mistakes. But here the perusal of the order of the lower Court would reveal that while passing exparte judgment and decree, the lower Court consciously took a decision to impose interest at 9% per annum and in such a case, the question of typographical error or clerical error having been allegedly crept in the judgment and decree does not arise.
In view of the ratiocination adhered to by me supra, the order of the lower Court is set aside by allowing this revision and I.A. No. 993 of 2005 shall stand dismissed. I make it clear that if at all the plaintiff was aggrieved by a portion of the decree relating to awarding of interest, appeal of review as the case may be at his discretion should have been filed relating to that much portion of the decree. Hence it is open for the plaintiff to resort to either of the procedures as per law subject to law of limitation.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.