Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 533 (AP)

Guda Sanjeeva Reddy v. Kodathala Sujatamma

2006-04-19

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2006
ORDER Respondent filed O.S.No.198 of 1991, for declaration of her title to and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the revision petitioner, describing the plaint schedule property as situate in Sangam Village of Sangam Mandal, though actually the plaint schedule property is situated in Buchireddypalem Village of Buchireddypalem Mandal. The contention of the respondent is that her counsel in the trial Court, when the plaint was returned for compliance with certain objections by the Office, had made the necessary corrections in the plaint schedule by correcting the name of the Village and Mandal as Buchireddypalem by rounding of the words Sangam before Village and Mandal. Revision petitioner filed O.S.No.54 of 1994 against the respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of the very same property. Both the suits were clubbed and tried together and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed. Questioning the decree passed against him in O.S.No.198 of 1991, revision petitioner preferred an appeal, and later withdrew the same. Thereafter respondent filed E.P. for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, in which revision petitioner raised an objection that the decree is not executable inasmuch as the plaint schedule describes the property as situated in Sangam Village of Sangam Mandai, while the respondent is seeking delivery of possession of property situated in Buchireddypalem Village of Buchireddypalem Mandal. The Executing Court, after recording the evidence adduced by both sides overruled the objection of the respondent and ordered delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property by the order under revision. Hence, this revision by the Judgment-debtor. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the amendments said to have been made in the plaint and plaint schedule etc., do not contain initials of either the respondent or her Counsel in the trial Court, it has to be presumed that those amendments were made subsequent to the numbering of the suit without seeking leave of the Court and since the E. P. schedule property is not the same as the plaint schedule, the Executing Court was in error in overruling the objections of the revision petitioner. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the Counsel for the respondent in the trial Court having found that there is a typographical error in the names of the Village and Mandal, had corrected the same, and the fact that those corrections were made even at the initial stage but not after passing of the decree, as is being Gontended by the revision petitioner, would be evident from the fact that certified copies of the decree obtained by the respondent in 1997 shows the name of the Village as Buchireddypalem and since the Executing Court, by a well-reasoned order, held that the corrections were made even prior to the registration of the suit, revision petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. It is an admitted case that revision petitioner had withdrawn the appeal preferred by him inter alia questioning the location of the plaint schedule property and so the decree passed by the trial Court, has become final. The decree of the trial Court shows that the plaint schedule property is situated in Buchireddypalem Village. 4. During the course of hearing I enquired from the learned Counsel for the parties whether the parties went to trial on the basis that the plaint schedule property is situated in Sangam Village or in Buchireddypalem Village. Both the learned Counsel have fairly conceded that the parties went to trial on the basis that the plaint schedule property is situated at Buchireddypalem Village only. The suit filed by the revision petitioner for specific performance of the agreement of sale, which was dismissed, relates to the property at Buchireddypalem Village, but not Sangam Village. The defence of the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as he has an agreement of sale in respect of the plaint schedule property respondent is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the suit. So, it is clear that both the parties are very well aware that the property sought to be recovered from the revision petitioner is situated in Buchireddypalem Village and not in Sangam Village and Mandal. Therefore, it is not very relevant or necessary to go into the question when actually the corrections in the plaint and plaint schedule were made. So, it is clear that both the parties are very well aware that the property sought to be recovered from the revision petitioner is situated in Buchireddypalem Village and not in Sangam Village and Mandal. Therefore, it is not very relevant or necessary to go into the question when actually the corrections in the plaint and plaint schedule were made. But, I wish to state that the observation made by the learned Judge in the order under revision, relating to not carrying out of the corrections about the situation of the plaint schedule properties at Buchireddypalem in the suit register as not relevant for deciding the question as to when the correction was made in the plaint is not correct, because entries in the suit register will be made only after the suit is registered, but not immediately on its presentation in the office Since the observation made in the order under revision shows that the name of the Village is not corrected as Buchireddypalem in the suit register, it is easy to see that the corrections in the plaint were made after it was registered only, but not before. Instead of tampering with the record, that too without the knowledge of the Court, respondent could have filed a petition for correction of the name of the Village and Mandai by invoking Section 153 CPC, and it would have been allowed as a typographical error at any stage, because both parties are aware that the suit relates to the property, at Buchireddypalem, but not at Sangam, and since proceeding referred to in Section 153 CPC includes plaint also. 5. As stated above, since the parties went to trial knowing that the property is situated at Buchireddypalem Village and Mandai and since the suit is decreed, respondent is entitled to recover the plaint schedule property. So merely on the ground that the name of the Village was wrongly described in the plaint in the initial stage, revision petitioner cannot be heard to say that the decree is un-executable. 6. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision, and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall deliver possession of the decree schedule property to the respondent within two months from to-day. Parties are directed to bear their costs in this revision.