Skip to content


Puchalapalli Adiseshadri Reddi Vs. Mungamur Sivaramayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1202(1); 31Ind.Cas.320
AppellantPuchalapalli Adiseshadri Reddi
RespondentMungamur Sivaramayya
Excerpt:
practice - mistake in preliminary decree passed by high court--final decree in accordance with high court's preliminary decree passed by district court-district court, power of, to correct mistake--interest on total amount awarded, if legal--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxiv, rule 2. - .....cannot be corrected by the district court. the district court was legally bound to draw up its final decree only in accordance with the high court's preliminary decree.2. the district judge, therefore, rightly refused the application to correct his final decree, which was in accordance with the preliminary decree passed by the high court. there was, therefore, no ground for interference under section 115, civil procedure code, with his said order of refusal. we dismiss the letters patent appeal with costs on this ground, though we differ respectfully from the view of the learned judge whose decision is now under appeal, namely, that there is anything in order xxxiv, rule 2, to prevent a court from providing in its decree for interest on the total amount awarded to the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

1. The High Court's preliminary decree superseded the District Court's preliminary decree. An error in the High Court's preliminary decree cannot be corrected by the District Court. The District Court was legally bound to draw up its final decree only in accordance with the High Court's preliminary decree.

2. The District Judge, therefore, rightly refused the application to correct his final decree, which was in accordance with the preliminary decree passed by the High Court. There was, therefore, no ground for interference under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, with his said order of refusal. We dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with costs on this ground, though we differ respectfully from the view of the learned Judge whose decision is now under appeal, namely, that there is anything in Order XXXIV, Rule 2, to prevent a Court from providing in its decree for interest on the total amount awarded to the plaintiff because such total includes interest on the bond sued on.


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