Jureddy Kannayya and Others vs Yandamuri Lakshmidevi and Another

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.—In O.S. No. 12 of 1934 of the Court of the Assistant Agent, Bhadrachalam Division, an Agency tract,

one Bhimavarapu Ramaswamy sued to enforce his share in a mortgage, the share Being a moiety. In addition to the mortgagors he made as

defendants the present petitioners, who are his co-mortgagees. Sometime prior to the 7th October, 1936, the petitioners applied to the Court for

an order transposing them as co-plaintiffs and this application was granted. The order was followed by an application by them, in which they asked

to be allowed to amend the plaint by including in it a prayer for their half share of the mortgage. The original plaintiff had paid the court-fee on the

full amount due by the mortgagors. This application came before the Assistant Agent on the 4th November, 1936. He refused to allow the

amendment on the remarkable ground that if it was allowed it would change the entire nature of the suit, his view being that ""only clerical mistakes,

etc.,"" are usually allowed to be amended. It is not surprising that the petitioners applied for revision of this order to the Agent. Rule 55 of the

Agency Rules states that the Agent to the Governor or the Government Agent, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a

decree or order made in any case decided by a Court subordinate to him was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with

respect thereto as he thinks fit. The Government Agent dealt with this application on the 13th April, 1937, and rejected it on the ground that Rule

55 provides only for the revision of orders passed in cases finally decided by the Subordinate Courts. Rule 59 states that all petitions against the

proceedings of the Agent to the Governor or the Government Agent in respect of matters, not otherwise provided for in the rules, must in the first

instance be submitted to the Government, who may, if necessary, refer them to the High Court. An application was made to the Government for

revision of the Agent''s order, and the Government has referred the matter. to this Court.

This Court has always held that it has power under the CPC to revise even interlocutory orders. The Agency Rules do not incorporate the

provisions of Section 115 of the Code, and Rule 55 is widely drawn. In view of the decisions of this Court the Agent should have held that he had

the power to revise the Assistant Agent''s order, and in passing the order which he did he wrongly refused to exercise a jurisdiction which he

possessed. In these circumstances, we consider that the orders of the Agent and the Assistant Agent should be set aside. The application for leave

to amend the plaint will be granted, but in directing the Court of the Assistant Agent to accept the amendment proposed we are not expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case.

The petitioners are entitled to their costs throughout.