Skip to content


Venkatasami Naidu Vs. Venkatasubba Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in95Ind.Cas.196
AppellantVenkatasami Naidu
RespondentVenkatasubba Naidu and ors.
Cases ReferredNirit Lal Jha v. Kalanand Singh
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 182 (l) - amended decree, execution of--'date of amendment', meaning of - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is read along with sub-section (12) of section..........and the argument is advanced that an amendment does not bear the same relation to the order as a decree bears to the judgment and that, therefore, the provision in the c. p. c. which says that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment is not applicable here. as a matter of fact, an order of amendment is itself a judgment and in accordance therewith, the original decree is altered and becomes a new and amended decree in accordance with the judgment pronounced. it seems, therefore, clear that the date of the amended decree must be the same as that of the judgment. to hold otherwise would be to put in the hands of the ministerial officers of the court the power to fix any date for the amendment of the decree quite regardless of the date on which the order was passed. the same view.....
Judgment:

1. The only question for determination is the meaning of the words 'date of amendment' in Article 182 (4) of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, It is contended for the appellant that the 'date of amendment' must mean the date on which the decree is actually altered or corrected and not the date of the Court's order directing the amendment, and the argument is advanced that an amendment does not bear the same relation to the order as a decree bears to the judgment and that, therefore, the provision in the C. P. C. which says that the decree shall bear the date of the judgment is not applicable here. As a matter of fact, an order of amendment is itself a judgment and in accordance therewith, the original decree is altered and becomes a new and amended decree in accordance with the judgment pronounced. It seems, therefore, clear that the date of the amended decree must be the same as that of the judgment. To hold otherwise would be to put in the hands of the ministerial officers of the Court the power to fix any date for the amendment of the decree quite regardless of the date on which the order was passed. The same view was taken in Nirit Lal Jha v. Kalanand Singh 36 Ind. Cas. 533 : 3 P. L. W. 447. and we see no reason to hold otherwise.

2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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