Skip to content


Bhagaban Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors. Vs. AmIn Ali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in86Ind.Cas.756
AppellantBhagaban Chandra Roy Chowdhury and ors.
RespondentAmIn Ali and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure, code (act v of 1908), sections 115 and 152r - amendment of decree--procedure, error in--revision. - .....in the court of the subordinate judge. the suit was transferred for hearing to the additional district judge who was then in the district. the suit was decreed by the additional district judge on compromise against some of the defendants who had signed the solenama and was dismissed as against those defendants who had not signed the solenama. the decree, however, was drawn up in such a way that it was passed not merely against those who signed the solenama but also against those who had not done so and against whom according to the true reading of the judgment of the additional district, judge the suit had been dismissed. subsequently, when it was sought to execute the decree against the defendants who had not signed the solenama, an application became necessary to amend the decree.....
Judgment:

1. The suit out of which this application arises was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was transferred for hearing to the Additional District Judge who was then in the district. The suit was decreed by the Additional District Judge on compromise against some of the defendants who had signed the solenama and was dismissed as against those defendants who had not signed the solenama. The decree, however, was drawn up in such a way that it was passed not merely against those who signed the solenama but also against those who had not done so and against whom according to the true reading of the judgment of the Additional District, Judge the suit had been dismissed. Subsequently, when it was sought to execute the decree against the defendants who had not signed the solenama, an application became necessary to amend the decree so that it might accord with the judgment. An application was accordingly made to the District Judge as the Additional District Judge had by that time left the district and no successor to him had been appointed, the District Judge said that inasmuch as the suit had been originally instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and inasmuch as it had only been transferred for hearing to the Additional District Judge the proper Court in which to make the application was the Court of the Subordinate Judge. The application was accordingly made to the Subordinate Judge and the Subordinate Judge amended the decree to bring it in accordance with the judgment.

2. This Rule was granted on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make the amendment. We were referred in support of this to various sections of Act XII of 1887, an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Civil Courts. Amongst other sections we were referred to Section 3, Section 8, Section 12 and to several other sections. Now it seems to us that substantial justice has been done in this case and this being so, even if the procedure was wrong we do not think that we should interfere in our revisional jurisdiction. After all, somebody must have had the authority to amend, the decree after, as happened, the Additional District Judge who passed it had left the district and thinking as we do that substantial justice has been done we do not propose to interfere on a merely technical ground such as is raised here.

3. The result is that the Rule is discharged.

4. We make no order as to costs.


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