Skip to content


K. Muniyappa Vs. M.A. Hanumantha and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 441 of 1950-51
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Kant43; AIR1953Mys43
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151 and 152 - Order 47, Rule 1
AppellantK. Muniyappa
RespondentM.A. Hanumantha and ors.
Appellant AdvocateD. Shama Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV. Krishnamurthy, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....the order of the munsiff under revision is set aside and it is directed that, he will make the necessary corrections in the judgment as well as in the decrees by substituting item 2 for item 1. each party to bear this own costs......is allowed, the order of the munsiff under revision is set aside and it is directed that, he will make the necessary corrections in the judgment as well as in the decrees by substituting item 2 for item 1. each party to bear this own costs. 3. revision allowed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner filed a suit for redemption and for being put in possession of second item of the plaint schedule property in consequence of redemption, and alleged that he was already in possession of the first item. The judgment of the learned Munsiff was in favour of the plaintiff and as is clear from the judgment and the order now under revision, by a clerical error he directed that the plaintiff must be put in possession of the first item instead of mentioning that he must be put in possession of the second item. The mistake naturally crept into the decrees drawn up in the case. It is contended that the petitioner discovered the mistake only when he had to file an execution application. A review petition was filed, but it was filed after the period of limitation. An application under Section 152, Civil P.C., was also filed.

2. It is a clear case of clerical error and I am inclined to think that the learned Munsiff had ample jurisdiction under Section 152, Civil P.C., to make the correction, but unfortunately he has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under an impression that he has no such power. I may here refer to -- 'Kawdu v. Berar Ginning Co. Ltd., Akot' , where it is observed as follows :

'An application for review of an order under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., if found to be barred by limitation, may under appropriate circumstances be treated as an application under Section 151 if the Court is satisfied that there has been a flagrant abuse of its own process and it is also open to the appellate Court under similar circumstances to treat a barred application for review, made to the first Court, as one made under Section 151 in order to remove an apparent injustice done to the applicant and to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court.'

I may here also refer to the decision reported in 39 Mys HCR 1036 :

'Where a Subordinate Judge inadvertently omitted to award costs in his order and his successor amended the said order by awarding costs on an application by the party concerned : Held that the lower Court was right in treating the application as one falling under Section 152, Civil P.C. and in setting right the inadvertent omission.'

The learned Munsiff had ample powers under Section 152, Civil P.C. to correct the judgment and decrees in such circumstances. The revision, petition is allowed, the order of the Munsiff under revision is set aside and it is directed that, he will make the necessary corrections in the judgment as well as in the decrees by substituting item 2 for item 1. Each party to bear this own costs.

3. Revision allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //