VENKATA JOGAYYA Vs. VENKATASIMHADRI JAGAPATIRAZU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE amendment of the decree related to the actual amount of costs, which was not settled in the judgment, but which, under the second paragraph of Section 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had as usual to be determined subsequent to judgment for entry in the decree. An order passed by the Court determining such amount must be treated as a continuation or completion of the judgment and the amendment made was, therefore, substantially an amendment made on review of judgment, and Art. 179, Clause (3), of the second schedule of the Limitation Act strictly applies. THE cases of Kali Prosanno Basu Roy V/s. Lal Mohun Guha Roy I.L.R. 25 Calc. 258 and Daya Kishan V/s. Nanhi Begam I.L.R. 20 All. 304 were cases where the decree differed from what appeared on the face of he judgment. As this is not a similar case, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the contrary decisions arrived at in those cases. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.