Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3519 (MAD)

Samuthirapandi v. Ramakrishnan

2015-10-28

P.DEVADASS

body2015
ORDER As only a short point, an interesting point is involved in this Revision, we shall dispose of this Revision today at the admission stage itself. 2. The fourth defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. 3. The plaintiff sought for declaration as to his title to the suit property tracing his title to a sale deed dated 30.09.1980 and also sought for consequential injunction. He laid the suit as against the defendants 1 and 2. Since second defendant had died, defendants 3 to 6 were added as legal representatives of the deceased second defendant. 4. The first defendant filed written statement resisting the suit. Issues were framed. Evidence, oral and documentary were let in. Appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and rejected the case of the first defendant. In the Judgment, at the last line, it has recorded “In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for with cost of the suit”. 5. Decree was drawn up as under:- “1.That the suit is hereby decreed and it is declared that the plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and 2. That the permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants 1 and 3 to 6 defendants and their men not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintiff in any manner; and 3. That the defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.642.50 to the plaintiff”. 6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Judgment is vague, not specific as to the relief granted and the decree drawn up is not inconsonance with the Judgment. In this connection, he has cited Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others (AIR 2003 SCC 351). 7. I have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the materials on record and the decision cited. 8. It is needless to emphasis that writing/producing a Judgment is an essential function of a Court. Writing Judgment is an art. A Judge should approach the Judgment 'with delivery pain'. So much importance is attached to the Judgment of a Court. A civil Court decree must follow the Judgment. It should not be putting the cart before the horse. 9. It is needless to emphasis that writing/producing a Judgment is an essential function of a Court. Writing Judgment is an art. A Judge should approach the Judgment 'with delivery pain'. So much importance is attached to the Judgment of a Court. A civil Court decree must follow the Judgment. It should not be putting the cart before the horse. 9. A Judgment must be clear, then only the decree could be clear and the Judgment must tell very clearly what is the relief granted and what is the relief refused and the decree must be drawn up inconsonance with that. 10. In this connection, in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others (AIR 2003 SCC 351) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- “10. Certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be noticed. Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC requires the plaintiff to give sufficient particulars of the relief, which the plaintiff claims. Order XX requires a judgment to contain all the issues and findings or decision thereon with the reasons therefor. The judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party. The preparation of decree follows the judgment. The decree shall agree with the judgment. The decree shall contain, inter alia, particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The decree shall also state the amount of costs incurred in the suit and by whom or out of what property and in what proportions such costs are to be paid. Rules 9 to 19 Order XX are illustrative of contents of decrees in certain specified categories of suits. The very obligation cast by the Code that the decree shall agree with the judgment spells out an obligation on the part of the author of the judgment to clearly indicate the relief or reliefs to which a party, in his opinion, has been found entitled to enable decree being framed in such a manner that it agrees with the judgment and specifies clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The operative part of the judgment should be so clear and precise that in the event of an objection being laid, it should not be difficult to find out by a bare reading of the judgment and decree whether the latter agrees with the former and is in conformity therewith. The operative part of the judgment should be so clear and precise that in the event of an objection being laid, it should not be difficult to find out by a bare reading of the judgment and decree whether the latter agrees with the former and is in conformity therewith. A self-contained decree drawn up in conformity with the judgment would exclude objections and complexities arising at the stage of execution. 11. The obligation is cast not only on the Trial Court but also on the Appellate Court. In the event of the suit having been decreed by the Trial Court if the Appellate Court interferes with the judgment of the trail Court, the judgment of the Appellate Court should precisely and specifically set out the reliefs granted and the modifications, if any, made in the original decree explicitly and with particularity and precision. Order XLI, Rule 31 of the CPC casts an obligation on the author of the appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and when the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. If the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and in appeal the decree of dismissal is reversed, the operative part of the judgment should be so precise and clear as it would have been if the suit was decreed by the Trial Court to enable a self-contained decree being drawn up in conformity therewith. The plaintiff, being dominus litus, enjoys a free hand in couching the relief clause in the manner he pleases and cases are not wanting where the plaintiff makes full use of the liberty given to him. It is for the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then construct the operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in conformity with the findings arrived at on different issues and also the admitted facts. It is for the Court, decreeing the suit, to examine the reliefs and then construct the operative part of the judgment in such manner as to bring the reliefs granted in conformity with the findings arrived at on different issues and also the admitted facts. The Trial Court merely observing in the operative part of the judgment that the suit is decreed or an appellate Court disposing of an appeal against dismissed of suit observing the appeal is allowed and then staying short at that, without specifying the reliefs to which the successful party has been found entitled tantamounts to a failure on the part of the author of judgment to discharge obligation cast on the Judge by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.” 12. In the case at hand, a perusal of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint shows that the reliefs are not very happily worded. There are some reliefs which may not be necessary or may be uncalled for though prayed. The reliefs may have been considered capable of being recast or redefined so as to be precise and specific. May be that the Court was inclined to grant some other relief so as to effectually adjudicate upon the controversy and bring it to an end. Nothing is spelled out from the appellate judgment. The Trial Court, on whom the obligation was cast by second appellate judgment to draw up a decree, was also, as its order shows, not very clear in its mind and thought it safe to proceed on an assumption that all the reliefs sought for in the plaint were allowed to the plaintiffs. The learned single Judge allowing the second appeal, should have clearly and precisely stated the extent and manner of reliefs to which the plaintiffs were found to be entitled in his view of the findings arrived at during the course of the appellate judgment. The parties, the draftsman of decree and the executing Court cannot be left guessing what was transpiring in the mind of the Judge decreeing the suit or allowing the appeal without further placing on record the reliefs to which the plaintiffs are held entitled in the opinion of the Judge. 14. How to solve this riddle? The parties, the draftsman of decree and the executing Court cannot be left guessing what was transpiring in the mind of the Judge decreeing the suit or allowing the appeal without further placing on record the reliefs to which the plaintiffs are held entitled in the opinion of the Judge. 14. How to solve this riddle? In our opinion, the successful party has no other option but to have recourse of Section 152 of CPC which provides for clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission being corrected at any time by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. A reading of the judgment of the High Court shows that in its opinion the plaintiffs were found entitled to succeed in the suit. There is an accidental slip or omission in manifesting the intention of the Court by couching the reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled in the event of their succeeding in the suit. Section 152 enables the Court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. Power of the Court to amend its orders so as to carry out the intention and express the meaning of the Court at the time when the order was made was upheld by Bowen L.J. in re Swire; Mellor V. Swire, (1885) 30 Ch. D. 239, subject to the only limitation that the amendment can be made without injustice or on terms which preclude injustice. Lindley L.J. observed that if the order of the Court, though drawn up, did not express the order as intended to be made then "there is no such magic in passing and entering an order as to deprive the Court of jurisdiction to make its own records true, and if an order as passed and entered does not express the real order of the Court, it would, as it appears to me, be shocking to say that the party aggrieved cannot come here to have the record set right, but must go to House of Lords by way of appeal. 15. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial Court drawing up the decree is set aside. 15. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The order of the Trial Court drawing up the decree is set aside. The parties are allowed liberty of moving the High Court under Section 152 CPC seeking appropriate rectification in the judgment of the High Court so as to clearly specify the extent and manner of reliefs to which in the opinion of the High Court the successful party was found entitled consistently with the intention expressed in the judgment. The delay which would be occasioned has to be regretted but is unavoidable. Once the operative part of the judgment is rectified there would be no difficulty in drawing up a decree by the High Court itself in conformity with the operative part of the judgment. If the rules of the High Court so require, the ministerial act of drawing up of the decree may be left to be preformed by the Trial Court.” 11. In the light of the above, in the case before us, the decree is not inconsonance with the Judgment. It is required to be rectified. 12. In the circumstances the learned Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil, in tune with the principles laid down in Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan Vs. Hari Prasad Bhuyan and others (AIR 2003 SCC 351) in exercise of his power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, will suo motu rectify the Judgment passed in O.S.No.323 of 2007 and inconsonance with that the decree shall be drawn up in the place of the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.2011 and issue copies of the revised Judgment and Decree to the parties. No costs.” 13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.