Skip to content


Sankuratri Timmayya Vs. Rajah Uppalapati Venkata Vijaya Gopalaraju Bahadur Zamindar Garu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Mad143(1); 24Ind.Cas.878
AppellantSankuratri Timmayya
RespondentRajah Uppalapati Venkata Vijaya Gopalaraju Bahadur Zamindar Garu
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115 - costs--error--power to correct. - .....material irregularity in not correcting the patent arithmetical error in the calculation of the vakil's fees and we correct that error by inserting rs. 10 instead of rs. 20 as the vakil's fees due to the respondent before us in his capacity of appellant in appeal suit no. 113 of 1911 in the godavari district court. even if section 115, civil procedure code, does not apply we think that such patent clerical or arithmetical errors committed by the lower courts could be corrected by us under the general powers of superintendence vested in us under the charter act, section 15.2. as regards the district judge's having, awarded proportionate costs in the district munsif's court also, on rs. 600 and odd, though the district munsif awarded the vakil's fees alone to the respondent on that.....
Judgment:

1. The District Judge acted with material irregularity in not correcting the patent arithmetical error in the calculation of the Vakil's fees and we correct that error by inserting Rs. 10 instead of Rs. 20 as the Vakil's fees due to the respondent before us in his capacity of appellant in Appeal Suit No. 113 of 1911 in the Godavari District Court. Even if Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply we think that such patent clerical or arithmetical errors committed by the lower Courts could be corrected by us under the general powers of superintendence vested in us under the Charter Act, Section 15.

2. As regards the District Judge's having, awarded proportionate costs in the District Munsif's Court also, on Rs. 600 and odd, though the District Munsif awarded the Vakil's fees alone to the respondent on that amount and the respondent had not appealed to the District Court in respect of the other costs (such as process-fees, etc.) disallowed by the Munsif, the District Judge justifies such award, of excess costs under the powers vested in the Appellate Court under Order XLI, Rule 33.

3. Even if he was wrong in that opinion, that is not an error which could be corrected under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, especially as Section 115 applies only to cases where no appeal lies'' to recover to the High Court, and the appellant could have appealed against the order awarding the excess costs passed by the District Judge. This petition is allowed as regards the Rs. 10 and is dismissed in other respects. The parties will bear their own costs in this petition.


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