- (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated June 6, 1990, whereby the application for amendment of the judgment and decree filed under Sections 151/152 C. P. C. was allowed.
(2.) THE bank filed the suit on July 18, 1978 for the recovery of Rs. 1,32,769. 80 paise. The suit was for the recovery from the defendants as well as by sale of the mortgaged property. The said suit was decreed on November 24-1980. The decree passed was on the following term; "in view of the observations made above, the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 132,769. 80 paise is hereby ordered to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs of the suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to recover future interest on the said amount at the rate of Rs. 13 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit till the realisation of the entire decretal amount. Decree sheet be prepared and the file be consigned to the record room after necessary completion and in due course of time. " The execution of the said decree was sought on August 21, 1984. During the pendency of the execution application, the present application under Sections 151/152 C. P. C. dated August 9, 1988 was filed seeking correction of the judgment and the decree by the decree-holder Bank. There were two specific issues whether any equitable mortgage of the properties was created and by whom and in respect of which property; and if his issue is proved, what was the mortgage amount due and against which property. Since both these issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff decree holder the decretal amount was recoverable by sale of the mortgaged property. However, according to the decree holder this was not so mentioned in the decree-sheet and, therefore, the decree was not in conformity with the judgment. The said application was contested on behalf of the judgment debtor, inter alia, on the ground that the executing Court could not go beyond the decree and the decree was in accordance with the judgment as contained in its Ian paragraph. The executing Court came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that in para No. 23 of the judgment dated 24-11-1980, the sub Judge held that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 both deposited the sale deeds with intend to create equitable mortgage as collateral security for repayment of loan by defendants 2 and 3. It was bald that the decree should have been for the recovery of suit amount by sale of mortgaged properties. Consequently, in the interest of justice the application was allowed and ordered the amendment of the decree dated 24-11-1980 to the effect that the suit amount be recovered against the defendants-judgment debtors by sale of mortgaged properties mentioned in the judgment. Dissatisfied with the same, the judgment debtors have filed this petition in this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the executing Court could not go beyond the decree, the application was barred by time; that the decree was in accordance with the last paragraph of the judgment as provided under Order 20, Rule 6-A C. P. C. and in any case, even if the amendment was to be made, a preliminary decree could be passed under Order 34, Rules 4 and 5 C. P. C. , so that the judgment debtors could file an appeal against the said decree.;