Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 273 (KER)

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. Jyothi Trading Co.

2000-05-30

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

body2000
Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The question that falls for consideration in this case is whether in a case of decree passed on concession in terms of the plaint and where portions of the plaint claims are left out in the judgment and decree, an application to supply the deficient parts will amount to a review of the judgment and decree or whether it is only a correction, as contemplated in S.152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff bank. In answer to the suit for realisation of money by sale of the schedule properties, the defendants submitted during hearing that they were withdrawing the contentions raised earlier and agreeing for a decree in terms of the plaint. The suit was accordingly disposed of on 17.3.1998 stating as follows: "D1 to D3 filed petition to set aside exparte order. Allowed. D4 is absent. Set ex parte. D1 to D3 filed consent statement. Suit is decreed in terms of plaint. Refund court fee. The plaintiff is allowed to recover Rupees Two lakhs Ninety three thousand and one hundred with future interest of 22.25% per annum from date of decree till realisation in default of such deposit plaintiff is allowed to recover the said amount by sale of properties mortgaged and from the defendants and their assets. Refund i/ /- court fee to plaintiff. No costs". 3. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that in spite of the suit being decreed in terms of the plaint, there was failure on the part of the Court to provide for pendente lite interest at 22.25%, as sought for in the plaint though the court allowed the claim for interest for the post decretal period. The other grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the suit being decreed in terms of the plaint, there is an omission to include the cost element in the judgment and decree. It was to provide for the said corrections that he filed LA. No. 880/99. The Court below has treated the application as one for review of the judgment and directed in the impugned order that he should pay requisite court fee provided for review. 4. I heard both sides. Here is a case where the plaintiff had prayed for a decree allowing him to recover a sum of Rs. No. 880/99. The Court below has treated the application as one for review of the judgment and directed in the impugned order that he should pay requisite court fee provided for review. 4. I heard both sides. Here is a case where the plaintiff had prayed for a decree allowing him to recover a sum of Rs. 2,93,100/- with future interest at 22.25% per annum thereon until realisation and the cost of the suit from the defendants charged on the property scheduled in the plaint and also directing the defendants to deposit such sum, calculated as above, in court, within a specified time and in default, to recover the amount by sale of the mortgaged properties. There is no dispute that the defendants, in the course of the suit, withdrew their contentions and agreed for a decree in terms of the plaint. It necessarily pre-supposes that the court was to grant all the reliefs prayed for in the plaint which would include interest at 22.25% per annum from the date of the suit till payment, as also the plaintiff's costs in this suit. 5. A perusal of the judgment passed in the case on 17.3.1998 shows that the Court found it fit to decree the suit in terms of the plaint. It was, however, observed further in the later portion of the judgment that future interest will beat 22.25% per annum. There was no reason given in the judgment which justifies the denial of interest at the same rate for the period of pendency of the suit. The last portion of the judgment says that costs are not allowed. It is obvious that the denial of interest for the period of pendency of the suit and denial of costs go against the earlier observation contained in the judgment that the suit was decreed in terms of the plaint. 6. What falls for consideration next is the relief that the petitioner should seek for to correct the aforesaid defects contained in the judgment. 7. 6. What falls for consideration next is the relief that the petitioner should seek for to correct the aforesaid defects contained in the judgment. 7. S.152 of the CPC provides as follows: "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties." It is clear from a reading of the provision that it is not only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgment but also errors arising in the judgment from such accidental slip or omission that can be corrected under S.152. 8. Varghese v. Indian Bank (1998(2) KLT 601) dealt with a case where there was no contest to the claim of the plaintiff for interest at 24.25% per annum with quarterly rests. When the judgment was passed, the words "quarterly rests" were, however, left out. An application for correction made under S.152 of the CPC was resisted. This Court found that the act of the Court should not prejudice any party and courts have the duty to see that their records are true and present the correct state of affairs. When the judge carelessly and unintentionally said something in the judgment or order which he did not mean to say or omitted something which he meant, it could be said to be an error arising out of accidental slip or omission. The prayer to include 'quarterly rests' in the decretal portion of the judgment was, therefore, allowed invoking the power under S.152 of the CPC. 9. The position was reiterated by this Court in Pradeep Kumar v. S.B.T. (1998(2) KLT 927) also. The power of the power to make corrections necessary for the ends of justice, it was held, is not confined only to powers exercisable under S.152 and extensive powers may be exercised under Ss.151 and 153 of the CPC as well. 10. In the instant case, having found on the basis of withdrawal of the entire contention and the concession made for decree in terms of the plaint, that the plaintiff was entitled to get such a decree in terms of the plaint, it was inappropriate for the Court to have withheld the claims for pendente lite interest and for the costs of the suit. The prayer of the plaintiffs made in LA. The prayer of the plaintiffs made in LA. No. 880/99 was only to make appropriate contention to rectify the said errors arising from accidental slip or omission. The petition certainly deserved to be dealt with under the provisions quoted by the petitioner and not by treating it as an application for review. 11. The impugned order is, therefore, defective and it is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted. The petition will be disposed of in accordance with law independently after giving adequate opportunity to the respondents to file objections, if any. C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. The parties will appear before the trial court without further notice on 1.8.2000.