Skip to content


Panguluru Pullappa Naidu and ors. Vs. Lakku Venkatanarappa Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Petition No. 1832 of 1947
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad578
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115 and 152
AppellantPanguluru Pullappa Naidu and ors.
RespondentLakku Venkatanarappa Reddi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateAlladi Kuppuswami, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA. Seethapathi, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredSimhagiri Dora v. Zamindarini of Chemudu
Excerpt:
- - 599 it was held by a learned judge of this court that in exceptional cases an order allowing an amendment of a decree could be interfered with in revision by this court though in that case the trial court amended, without jurisdiction, a decree of the appellate court......file of his court. the respondent's counsel takes a preliminary objection to the filing of this civil revision petition on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner was by way of an appeal from the amended decree and that this civil revision petition is therefore incompetent.2. in narayanaswami v. natesa, 16 mad. 424, it was held by this court that an order allowing an amendment of a decree was open to revision, although the decree, as amended, was appeal-able; but this view was not accepted in viswanathan chetti v. ramanathan chetti, 24 mad. 646 by the division bench. in bhagirathi v. minakshi, (1917) 31 m. l. j. 438 :a. i. r. 1917 mad. 599 it was held by a learned judge of this court that in exceptional cases an order allowing an amendment of a decree could be interfered with in.....
Judgment:

1. This is a revision petition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nellore, allowing an amendment of the decree in A. S. No. 162 of 1944 on the file of his Court. The respondent's counsel takes a preliminary objection to the filing of this civil revision petition on the ground that the remedy of the petitioner was by way of an appeal from the amended decree and that this civil revision petition is therefore incompetent.

2. In Narayanaswami v. Natesa, 16 Mad. 424, it was held by this Court that an order allowing an amendment of a decree was open to revision, although the decree, as amended, was appeal-able; but this view was not accepted in Viswanathan Chetti v. Ramanathan Chetti, 24 Mad. 646 by the Division Bench. In Bhagirathi v. Minakshi, (1917) 31 M. L. J. 438 :A. I. R. 1917 Mad. 599 it was held by a learned Judge of this Court that in exceptional cases an order allowing an amendment of a decree could be interfered with in revision by this Court though in that case the trial Court amended, without jurisdiction, a decree of the appellate Court. In Adinarayana Rao v. Kothandaramayya Naidu : AIR1940Mad538 . Wadsworth J. referred to the earlier decisions and was inclined to the view that the High Court would not ordinarily entertain a revision petition, When a remedy by way of appeal was available against the amended decree, but in very special circumstances, it would be open to the High Court to do so. Though opinion was oscillating in this Court till 1940, still, as a result of a series of decisions given with reference to Madras Act IV [4] of 1938, it has become the settled view of this Court that an order allowing an amendment of a decree is not liable to revision and that the remedy of the aggrieved party is only by way of an appeal, Vide, Arunchalam Chettiar v. Govinda-swami Goundan : AIR1942Mad519 and Sitaramamurthi v. Lakshminarayanamurthi : AIR1943Mad185 . These decisions have been followed by Horwill J. in Simhagiri Dora v. Zamindarini of Chemudu : AIR1950Mad15 where all the earlier cases are reviewed by the learned Judge and the conclusion has been arrived that an order amending a decree so as to bring it into conformity with the judgment is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code as an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal against the amended decree is available. I must follow these later decisions and hold that the present civil revision petition is not sustainable.

3. Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami applies for leave to convert this civil revision petition into a regular appeal on payment of the court-fee payable on the amended decree sought to be appealed against. I grant him a month's time for taking the necessary steps for so doing.

[This petition having been posted for being mentioned the Court delivered the following judgment :]

The appellants have not chosen to apply for conversion of this civil revision petition into an appeal or pay the requisite court-fee. This civil revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.


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