The State Bank of Patiala vs Dashmesh Soap Mills and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money by sale of mortgage property. Suit was decreed. Appeal there against was also dismissed. The plaintiff-bank thereafter took out execution and the decree was satisfied. It was at that point of time, the plaintiff-bank moved an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC before the Trial Court seeking amendment of the decree, which according to the bank was not as per the judgment rendered by it in the suit. The application was partly accepted by the learned Addl. Senior Subordinate Judge, Nabha, by order dated 13.6.1988. It may be noticed at this stage that the main relief claimed in the application was declined on its own merits. Dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed revision petition which was regisiered as Civil Revision 2431 of 1988. This revision was dismissed by S.D. Bajaj, J. (as his Lordship then was) by order dated 29.9.1988 which reads thus :-

"Dismissed. The petitioner may, if so advised approach the learned trial Court once again by invoking the provision of Section 153-A C.P.C."

The petitioner thereafter again moved an application before the trial Court which was dismissed by order dated 26.7.1991. Hence this petition. Section 153-A of the CPC reads thus :-

"153-A. Power to amend decree or order where appeal is summarily dismissed.- Where an Appellate Court dismisses an appeal under Rule 11 of Order XLI, the power of the Court to amend, u/s 152, the decree or order appealed against may be exercised by the court which had passed the decree or order in the first instance, notwithstanding that the dismissal of the appeal, has the effect of confirming the decree or order, as the case may be, passed by the court of first instance."

On a consideration of the matter and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The trial court did not dismiss the application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code by order dated 13.6.1988 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to amend the decree in view of the fact that the decree passed by it has merged on the decree passed by the appellate court. If that had been so, the position might have been otherwise. From the order dated 13.6.1988 dismissing the application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code, I find that the application was not disposed on technical ground or for lack of jurisdiction but was disposed of on its own merits and it was on that score, the same was partly accepted. Once, that is so, second application on that ground is not maintainable. Section 153-A of the Code only comes into play when a decree passed by the trial court has merged into the decree passed by the appellate Court and an application is thereafter filed before the trail Court. The position of law has been clarified by this section and the trial court has been permitted to consider the application under Sections 151, 152, 153 of the Code of correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment and decree even if the judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been affirmed by the first appellate court. This section nowhere gives jurisdiction to the trial court to again consider the application after dismissing the application on its own merits. This Court now in a revision petition cannot go into the question whether there is or is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment and decree of the trial Court as the revision petition against the order of the trial court holding that there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake, has already been dismissed by S.D. Bajaj, J (as his Lordship then was).

For the reasons stated above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.