BONGALE SESHAPPA Vs. R T PURUSHOTTAM
LAWS(KAR)-1988-3-45
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on March 11,1988

BONGALE SESHAPPA Appellant
VERSUS
R.T.PURUSHOTTAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chandrakantharai Urs, J. - (1.) We have perused the office note. Office note has laid emphasis on Section 153A of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the 1976 amendment to the Code Section 153A was introduced. It reads as follows :- "153A. 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, under Section 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"- By the express provision made to debar the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Appellate Court to modify the decree in terms of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure when appeal is disposed of in accordance with Rule 11 of Order 41, that is, without notice to the other side but on merits, it follows by implication that where notice has been issued to the opposite side and the matter has been disposed of after hearing both sides and on merit the High Court is not precluded from exercising its inherent power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify arithmetical, clerical or accidental slip in the drawing up of decree and to bring it in conformity with the judgment.
(2.) In that view we over rule the office objection and hold that application I.A. No. II should be allowed.
(3.) We notice from the decree drawn up by the lower Court in O.S. No. 61 of 1975 which was subject matter of R.F.A. No. 490/1985 was a suit for redemption of mortgage and for possession. The Form prescribed in Appendix-D to Civil Procedure Code for suits for foreclosure has been used and decree drawn up. We have no hesitation to hold that that is an error committed by the office of the trial Court. It should have drawn the decree as far as possible adhering to the form prescribed at Form No. 7F to appendix D to the Civil Procedure Code.;


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