NOOR KHAN Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against order dated 28.4.1999 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 6 -B/95 on an application under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ''the Code") whereby corrected the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1998 and corrected the relief clause and substituted the words "from the date of suit" in place of "from the date of decree".

(2.) THE brief facts for disposal of this revision petition are that on 14.9.1998 Third Additional District Judge, Mandsaur passed a decree against the applicants/defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,28,201 -00 with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 16.5% p.a. from the date of decree and thereafter on an application filed by the Respondent -Bank under section 152 of the Code by order dated 28.4.1999 allowed the same and corrected the decree on the ground that in the relief clause the plaintiff had sought a decree for pendente lite and future interest from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery but due to typographical mistake or due to accidental slip in the decree, it was mentioned as from the date of the decree. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

(3.) IN this case notice of this application under section 152 of the Code was not served on the applicants/defendants as they were ex -pane throughout during the pendency of the suit and the application under section 152 was filed on 5.4.1999. The Trial Court considered the facts and features of the case as well as the relief sought by the plaintiffs and found that it was nothing but a typographical error or an accidental slip or an omission. Therefore, allowed the application and corrected the decree and substituted the words' 'from the date of suit'' in place of ''from the date of decree'' on his own subjective satisfaction. Therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality nor has committed any error relating to the exercise of Sits jurisdiction. I do not think that any case is made out for interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The applicant may raise the said ground in appeal also. Also heard and considered LA. No. 738/2000 an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Office is directed to register it as M. (C) P.