AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.—Revision Petitioners are Respondents 3 and 4 in E.A. 495 of 1990 in E.P. 93 of 1989 in O.S. 171 of 1985 of the Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode. Execution application filed by the second Respondent for amendment of the decree was allowed by the Sub Judge.
Main contention of the revision Petitioners is that the E.A. filed before the executing Court u/s 152 CPC to amend the decree is not maintainable as the executing Court is not vested with any such jurisdiction.
Admittedly the decree was passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Kozhikode. It is to that Court that the petition was filed for amending the decree and it is that Court which allowed it. Contention that the decree was amended on the execution side and so it cannot be sustained is not tenable. At any rate, even if the decree was amended by the Sub Judge on the execution side that cannot in any manner affect its validity. Revision Petitioners have no case that it was a transferee executing Court that allowed the amendment. As the decree was amended by the Court which passed the decree, there cannot be any infirmity to it even if it is held that it was done on the execution side. At best it may be an irregularity but not an illegality vitiating the very order.
The C.R.P. is devoid of merit and hence it is dismissed. No costs.