TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Overturns Dismissal, Orders Amendments to Correct Property Description for Justice Under Civil Procedure Code.</h1> <h3>Shiam Lal Versus Moona Kuar and Ors.</h3> The HC allowed the application for revision, overturning the lower court's dismissal, and ordered amendments to correct the property description in the ... - Issues:Application for revision under S. 115, Civil P.C. against the order dismissing the application for correction of judgment and decree under Ss. 151, 152, and 153, Civil P.C.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Application for Amendment of Judgment and DecreeThe plaintiff filed a suit for foreclosure based on a mortgage-deed, and the decrees incorrectly described the mortgaged property. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint, preliminary decree, and final decree to correct the property description. The Munsif dismissed the application, citing the plaintiff's negligence in not verifying the decrees. The plaintiff argued that the Munsif had the jurisdiction under Ss. 151, 152, and 153 of the Civil P.C. to make the amendments. The main contention was whether the court had the power to correct errors in judgments and decrees due to clerical mistakes.Issue 2: Rights of Third PartiesThe defendant opposed the amendment, claiming that third parties had purchased the mortgaged grove. Citing a legal ruling, the defendant argued that allowing the amendment would prejudice the rights of third parties who were not part of the application. However, there was no concrete evidence on record to prove the sale of the grove to third parties, and thus, their rights would not be affected by the amendment.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the CourtThe plaintiff relied on legal precedents to support the argument that courts have inherent powers to rectify errors in judgments and decrees. Reference was made to cases emphasizing the court's duty to ensure substantial justice and correct accidental mistakes. The court highlighted that the Civil Procedure Code was not exhaustive, and judicial tribunals could act in the interest of justice even if the error could have been corrected on appeal.ConclusionThe High Court allowed the application for revision, setting aside the lower court's order and ordering the requested amendments to be made. The judgment emphasized that the refusal to amend the judgment and decrees was a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Civil P.C. The decision aimed to rectify the clerical error in the description of the mortgaged property to ensure justice and equity for the plaintiff.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
