Decided on December 18,1953

Devulapalli Viswanadhan And Another Appellant
Mandava Basavaiah And Others Respondents


- (1.) These are two civil revision petitions arising from two applications under Ss. 151, 152 and 153, Civil P.C. praying to transpose the awards in O.S. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1946 and amend the decrees passed suitably on the ground of accidental slip or omission. Permission was asked for adduction of evidence. The learned District Judge had jurisdiction to hear evidence to find out if the alleged mistake had arisen accidentally as alleged entitling him to proceed under S. 151, C.P.C. :- 'Ramasan Rai v. Raghunath Sahu , 1946 AIR(Pat) 190 (A). The learned Judge therefore followed the correct procedure, namely, he held that in order to find out whether there was such clerical slip or omission he must be satisfied that the slip or omission occurred either because it was obvious on the face of the record or on the evidence adduced before him. Therefore he directed that the arbitrators be examined and that oral evidence be adduced. 'Narayanan Nair v. Devki Amma , 1945 AIR(Mad) 230 (B), was followed. It is at this stage that these revision petitions are filed and this is not the stage at which the High Court -will interfere. There will be sufficient time for these petitioners to come here if after hearing the evidence the learned Judge passes orders and they feel aggrieved by those orders. These civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs in the peculiar individual circumstance of this case.
(2.) Before parting with this revision petition I must point out that even though this court has adopted the view that it has jurisdiction to interfere by way of revision in an interlocutory matter or proceeding: - 'Arunachalam Chettiar . v. Arunachalam Chettiar , 1935 AIR(Mad) 146 (C); - 'Parthasarathy Appa Rao v. Venkatadri Appa Rao , 1929 AIR(Mad) 121 (D); - 'M.J. Sheth and Co. v. Ramlza Bi , 1938 AIR(Mad) 646 (E), and has interfered with wrong and illegal orders at any stage of a suit calling for interference in revision, none can deny that the present is an instance of the abuse of such a liberal view and which if not checked in time will bring the revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court into disrepute. It is frivolous revision petitions of this nature that clog the administration of Justice and recall the well-known lines of Willock : "So slow is Justice in its ways Beset by more than customary days Going to law in these expensive days, Is much the same as going to dogs". It is to be hoped that such petitions will not be filed in future.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.