Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 987 (KAR)

ANANTAPPA KALLAPPA JARATKHANI v. ANNAPURNAVVA

2006-11-28

N.K.PATIL

body2006
N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22nd June 2006 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 85/2003 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Hubli, allowing the petition filed under Section 152 CPC, filled by respondents 1 to 4 herein, has presented the instant revision petition. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant revision petition is that, petitioner and respondent No. 7 herein had earlier filed the claim petitions in LAC No. 69/1987 and LAC. No. 97/1987 respectively. The reference Court, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has enhanced the compensation by allowing both the claim petitions. Assailing the correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the State through the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Assistant commissioner, Dharwad and the beneficiary, the Secretary, APMC, amrgol, Hubli have filed M. F. A. Nos. 3947/1995, 1001 and 1004 of 1995 and other appeals. The said judgment and award passed by the Reference court has been modified by this Court by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per gunta. Further, the case of the petitioner is that, the award passed by the Reference Court was in favour of the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 in LAC No. 69/1987 and LAC No. 97/1987 and the said judgment has not been challenged by respondents 1 to 4 and therefore, the said judgment has reached finality and has become final. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) THE respondents 1 to 4 have filed the application for amendment of the judgment and award under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court by its order dated 22nd June 2006 has allowed the said application and further ordered for amendment of the judgment and award. It is the case of petitioner that, the said order passed by the Trial Court is one without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, ordering amendment of the Judgment dated 13th January 1995 passed in LAC No. 69/1987 passed in common judgment and award passed in LAC 'no. 45/1987 comprising of 102 cases, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, ordering amendment of the Judgment dated 13th January 1995 passed in LAC No. 69/1987 passed in common judgment and award passed in LAC 'no. 45/1987 comprising of 102 cases, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant revision petition. ( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned senior Counsel and other Counsel appearing for respondents. ( 5 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, at the outset submitted that, the instant revision petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. To substantiate the said stand, he has taken me through the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that, the Trial Court has not committed any error much less illegality for the reason that, the respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed I. A. I in MFA No. 1001/1995 c/w 3947/1995 and 3867/1995 and the said application filed by respondents 1 to 4 had come! up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court on 3rd June 1995. This Court after hearing has rejected the application filed by respondents 1 to 4, reserving liberty to the respondents, to approach the Reference Court and get the award corrected on the basis that, there is an error committed in the order passed by the Reference court. Therefore, he submitted that, they are entitled to seek necessary correction before the Reference Court alone for rectification of the mistake that has crept in. After dispasal of the said I. A. I, filed by these respondents 1 to 4 as referred above, they have filed the application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rectification of the mistake committed in the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court, after hearing both the sides and after going through the judgment and award passed earlier, by assigning cogent reasons at paragraph 13 of its order, has opined that, the contents of the judgment and award at paragraphs 56 and 57 and in the operative portion, as extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court, is purely a mistake either while dictating the judgment or while typing the judgment. Further, the Trial Court observed that, on a careful perusal of the said judgment in detail, it becomes very clear that, the claim of the Jartakhani family and Gudli family in LAC no. 69/1987, 97/1987 and 98/1987 has been rejected by the said Court. Therefore, the prayer sought for in the application filed by petitioners therein (respondents 1 to 4 herein) before the Trial Court deserves to be accepted and accordingly, allowed the said application and ordered for amendment of the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 45/1987 comprising of 102 cases. The said reasoning given by the Court below is just and proper. Therefore. , I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below. Even other wise also, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner herein is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable for the simple reason that, if at all, petitioner has any grievance or is aggrieved by the order passed by the reference Court, allowing the application filed by petitioners therein (respondents 1 to 4 herein), it was very much open for him to redress his grievance before the appropriate legal forum. Instant (sic instead) of that, he has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant revision petition. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed as devoid of merits. ( 7 ) LEARNED Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance on behalf of fifth respondent with two weeks from today. Sri. I. G. Gachchinmath is permitted to file vakalath on behalf of sixth respondent within two weeks from today.