A. P. Misra, J. - (1.) -
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In pursuance of my order dated 7-5-87 the present application dated 8-5-85 was finally heard today and is being disposed of by means of the present order. The applicant by means of this application has sought for amendment of decree of the trial court on the basis of amendment in the plaint already allowed describing the boundaries. It is relevant to mention here that the case interse between the parties was decided by the trial court on 6-5-68 in pursuance of which a decree was prepared on 23-3-68. Thereafter an application for amendment of the plaint was made which was also allowed on 13-4-68. As against the aforesaid judgment a Second Appeal was preferred before this Court along with Revision no. 905 of 1968 challenging the aforesaid order allowing the amendment. This Court on 11-1-74 finally decided the Second Appeal and also the revision by virtue of which respondent's challenge to the amendment was rejected. Subsequently since the amendment of the decree was not made inspite of that the said amendment was allowed, the present application was moved by Ambrish Kumar alleging to be the heir of the decree holder for a direction to the trial court for making an appropriate amendment in the decree in accordance with the amendment already allowed as aforesaid. On 20-12-85 the present application was allowed. The respondent being aggrieved filed the review application for recalling the order. Subsequently various applications and affidavits were exchanged and finally as aforesaid on 7-5-87 an order was passed for a fresh hearing of this application after giving opportunity to the respondent. Objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the trial court committed illegality in permitting amendment of the plaint after the passing of the judgment and decree and that is without jurisdiction and thus, no direction should be issued for amendment of the decree. The second objection was raised that amendment of decree is barred by limitation and in view of that the amendment should not be granted by this Court. Finally it was also urged that the appellants are not the heirs and, therefore, direction for amendment of decree should not be passed.
(3.) REGARDING the first point I find this point interse between the parties stands concluded by revision no. 905 of 1968 where this was specifically raised before this Court in this revision which was rejected. In view of that after lapse of about 13 years, there is no question of permitting the respondent to raise the said point now. Learned counsel for the applicant tried to support his case under section 152 CPC for showing that this Court can always amend the decree. Reliance was placed on the words " or errors whatsoever therein from any accidental slip or omission ". The argument was that apart from the clerical or arithmetical mistakes an amendment to the decree could be made in a case of omission made by the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent urged that the aforesaid words qualify the words ' clerical or arithmetical mistake ', therefore, every omission cannot be amended under this provision.;