- (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 18-9-1989 whereby the application filed by the decree-holder/bank under Section 152 read with Section 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the judgment and decree was dismissed. The plaintiff-bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ? 14,96,611.27P. Though in the plaint it was alleged that certain goods have been pledged with the Bank but no issue was claimed by the plaintiff in this behalf. Ultimately the trial Court passed a simple decree for the recovery of the said amount with future interest at the agreed rate till realisation with costs. The application moved on behalf of the Bank was that the decree should have been passed for recovery by the sale of the pledged goods. According to the Bank this omission while awarding the relief was due to accidental slip and therefore, the decree should be passed in conformity with the findings of the Court. The Ld. Sub Judge found that the Court only passed the simple money decree and in case the decree was to be passed for recovery by sale of the property then in that situation a preliminary decree should have been passed in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, application filed by the decree-holder was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment prayed have been allowed in view of the finding given by the trial Court in its judgment. He further argued that even if there was no issue framed the necessary averments were made in the plaint and the findings were given by the trial Court in support of his contention and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to this relief as well. In support of his contention, he referred to Samarendra Nath Sinha and another v. Krishna Kumar, 1967 AIR(SC) 1440. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure . The case is squarely covered by the judgment in Civil Revision No. 2931 of 1989 M/s J.C. Woollen Mills and others v. State Bank of India decided on May 15,1990. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.;