Varkey vs Mathew

P. T. Raman Nayar, J.—Assuming, without deciding, that the respondent's contention that the appellant-judgment-debtor's application falls partly within section 8 of Act XXXI of 1958 is well founded, in so far it was for an amendment of the decree against him u/s 7 of the Act there is nothing in the Act, requiring him to deposit any of the installments due in accordance therewith before there can be an adjudication. The dismissal of the application in entirety on the ground that only two of the four installments that had fallen due had been deposited was therefore clearly wrong. The dismissal is therefore set aside in so far as the prayer for an amendment of the decree u/s 7 is concerned and the application so far as it relates to that prayer is remanded to the lower court for decision according to law. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal.

The objection taken that no appeal lies would appear to be well-founded; but that is of no avail since, if no appeal lies, a revision u/s 115 of the Code will, and, this seems to be so clearly a case of a failure to exercise a jurisdiction vested by law that I am prepared to, and do, make the above order in exercise of my powers of revision.