Skip to content


(Chennamangalath Illath) Govindan Nambiar and anr. Vs. (Janala Perikamanna Illath) Kesava Vadhyan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Mad421; 114Ind.Cas.635
Appellant(Chennamangalath Illath) Govindan Nambiar and anr.
Respondent(Janala Perikamanna Illath) Kesava Vadhyan
Cases ReferredKishori Mohan v. Chhanga Lal
Excerpt:
- .....but on the plaint and on the judgment, there is no scope for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies. the mistake lies on the person who did the arithmetical work, district munsiff or another. the mistake is purely an arithmetical error and to refuse to correct it is sheer arithmetical laziness. the case of pitchayya v. subba rao [1916] 3 m.l.w. 499 does not help the respondents, that was not a case of arithmetical error and where the decree is in accordance with the judgment in such a case, there is no reason to amend. in the case of kishori mohan v. chhanga lal : air1925all187 , there was an appeal, a final decree and complete execution of the decree and as a matter of discretion, the amendment was refused. there is no discretion in this case as i already pointed out, i.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. If there is the smallest possibility for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies, this is not a case to be taken in revision. But on the plaint and on the judgment, there is no scope for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies. The mistake lies on the person who did the arithmetical work, District Munsiff or another. The mistake is purely an arithmetical error and to refuse to correct it is sheer arithmetical laziness. The case of Pitchayya v. Subba Rao [1916] 3 M.L.W. 499 does not help the respondents, That was not a case of arithmetical error and where the decree is in accordance with the judgment in such a case, there is no reason to amend. In the case of Kishori Mohan v. Chhanga Lal : AIR1925All187 , there was an appeal, a final decree and complete execution of the decree and as a matter of discretion, the amendment was refused. There is no discretion in this case as I already pointed out, I allow the petition and substitute the figure Rs. 837-8 for Rs. 963-2-0. The petitioner, if he had been diligent, would be entitled to the costs of Civil Revision Petition. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.


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