Skip to content


Venkataramana Subnaya Bhat and anr. Vs. Timmappa Venkatraman Hegde and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Kant203; 1977(1)KarLJ353
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 20, Rule 11(2)
AppellantVenkataramana Subnaya Bhat and anr.
RespondentTimmappa Venkatraman Hegde and ors.
Appellant AdvocateT.S. Ramachandra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.M. Hegde, Adv.
Excerpt:
- section 20 & contempt of courts act (70 of 1971), sections 11 & 12: [s.r. bannurmath & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] penalty for disobedience - disobedience of order passed by karnataka information commission maintainability of contempt petition - held, section 20 of rti act itself provides for remedy. under section 20 of rti act commission is vested with power to penalize defaulting officer by imposing penalty up to rs. 25,000/- and also recommend for disciplinary action against him. thus commission is empowered to enforce its own order. remedy being available under rti act itself, contempt petition under contempt of courts act, 1971 is not maintainable. - the court can correct the mistakes like clerical or arithmetical or any errors arising thereon......they filed an application for execution of the decree. the court, then, said that unless the decree is amended as per the terms of the compromise, they cannot maintain the execution petition. so, the respondents filed another application under ss. 151 and 152 of the code of civil procedure to amend the decree. that application has been allowed by the court.hence, this revision petition.3. counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the court has no jurisdiction to amend the decree as per the terms of the compromise.4. in order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions relating to the amendment of a decree.when once the decree is made and signed, it shall not be altered or added to, save as provided by s. 152 of the code of civil procedure.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The order allowing an amendment to the decree in Original Suit No. 143/1957 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Sirsi, is the subject-matter of this revision petition under S. 115 of the Civil P. C.

2. The matter arises in this way:

One Venkataramana Hegde, father of the respondents, filed Original Suit No, 143/1957 to recover a sum of Rs. 25,000 from the petitioners. The suit was decreed and, during the execution of the decree, there was a compromise to pay the decretal amount by installments. The parties also agreed that the decree should be amended as per the terms thereof. The judgment-debtors appear to have paid some amount as per the instalment agreed upon. The respondents, before me, are the legal representatives of the decree-holder. To recover the 'balance, they filed an application for execution of the decree. The Court, then, said that unless the decree is amended as per the terms of the compromise, they cannot maintain the execution petition. So, the respondents filed another application under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the decree. That application has been allowed by the Court.

Hence, this revision petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the Court has no jurisdiction to amend the decree as per the terms of the compromise.

4. In order to appreciate the contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions relating to the amendment of a decree.

When once the decree is made and signed, it shall not be altered or added to, save as provided by S. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure or on review (See O. XX, R. 3 of the Civil P. C.). Of course, if the decree drafted is not in accordance with the judgment pronounced, the Court can always amend the decree so as to bring it in conformity with the judgment because O. XX, R. 6 of the Civil P. C. provides for such a remedy.

Under S. 152 of the Civil P. C. the Court can correct the mistakes like clerical or arithmetical or any errors arising thereon. But while so correcting, the Court has no power to amend the decree contrary to the judgment.

Under O. XX, R. 11 (1) of the Civil P. C., the Court may, for any sufficient reason, incorporate in the decree, after hearing such of the parties who had appeared personally or by pleader at the last hearing, before judgment, an order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by installments with or without interest, notwithstanding anything contained in the contract under which the money is payable. But, after the decree is made, the parties cannot have the payment of the decretal amount by installments without mutual consent.

Order XX, R. 11 (2) of the Civil P. C. provides:

'After the passing of any such decree the Court may, on the application of the judgment-debtor and with the consent of the decree-holder, order that payment of the amount decreed shall be postponed or shall be made by installments on such terms as to the payment of interest, the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor, or the taking of security from him, or otherwise, as it thinks fit.'

It is seen from the above provisions that, after the decree is made, if the parties agree that the amount decreed shall be paid by installments, it could be accepted by the Court.

5. Now, turning to the facts of the present ease it may seen that the compromise entered into by the parties, in the course of the execution, was valid and there is no complaint that the Court has no jurisdiction to record the compromise. The parties also agreed that the decree should be amended according to the terms of the compromise. The consent of the parties having been thus obtained, the Court could amend the decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise and that is what has been done in the present case. There is, therefore, no error of jurisdiction calling for interference.

6. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.

7. No costs.

8. Petition dismissed.


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