P ANDALLU Vs. MURALIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The CRP is directed as against an order made in IA No.302/2001 in OS No.530/97 on the file of the X Jr. Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

(2.) The respondent herein filed IA No.302/2001 on the file of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad under Section 152 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a relief to correct the judgment and decree dated 19-1-2001 by passing an eviction order against the revision petitioner herein and pass such other orders as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The respondent in the CRP, the plaintiff in OS No.530/97, had filed IA No.302/2001 for the relief specified supra. The respondent-plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid suit for the relief of perpetual injunction initially. But, in view of the changed circumstances, the respondent- plaintiff had filed an application in IA No.763 of 1998 for declaration of title and also ejectment of one room admeasuring 0.07 square yards, but the said application was allowed and the amendment was duly carried out. On contest, on 19-1-2001 the suit was decreed restraining the revision petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properly, but due to oversight, the relief of eviction was omitted and it is only an accidental slip and hence, the same is liable to be corrected by exercising powers under Section 152 read with Section 151 CPC. The revision petitioner, the defendant in the suit, had filed a counter opposing the application as not maintainable on the ground that these all are matters touching the merits of the case as such and hence such corrections arc beyond the scope of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below after hearing both the sides, had allowed the application by an order dated 4-6-2001. It is also brought to my notice that as against the main judgment made in OS No.530/97 a regular appeal was preferred in AS No.178/ 2001 on the file of III-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and the same is pending for disposal.

(3.) Mr. Radhakrishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had vehemently contended that the order of the Court below is totally unsustainable in law. The learned Counsel also had taken me through the contents of the judgment, which is now the subject-matter of appeal in AS No. 178/2001 and had contended that no specific issue has been framed on the aspect of eviction and when no specific findings had been recorded in the course of judgment, it cannot be said to be an accidental slip or an error within the ambit of Section 152 of CPC. The learned Counsel had further contended that the Court when it pronounced the judgment once, became functus officio and hence at the most the remedy will be either by way of appeal or by way of applying for review of the judgment and the course adopted by the respondent is peculiar and unknown to law and hence, the impugned order suffered from material irregularity and is not sustainable. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Dwaraka Das v. Stale of Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1999 SC 1031 and Samarendra Nath Sinha and another v. Krishna Kumar Nag, AIR 1967 SC 1440.