9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the original court to amend the decree after an appeal. 2. Amendment of the execution petition. 3. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Original Court to Amend the Decree After an Appeal: The primary issue in this case was whether the court that originally passed the decree had the jurisdiction to amend it after the decree had been appealed and a final order had been passed by the appellate court. The appellants contended that the original court ceased to have jurisdiction over the decree once it had been appealed and decided by the appellate court. This argument was supported by a series of decisions from this Court, including cases such as Rameswar Malia v. Bhaba Sundari Debi, Srigobind Sing v. Gangatri Pershad Singh, and Uma Sundari Devi v. Bindu Bashini, which consistently held that the original court loses jurisdiction after an appeal is decided. The respondent, however, argued that under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court could correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes at any time, even after an appeal. The Court ultimately agreed with the appellants, holding that the original court had no jurisdiction to amend the decree once it had been confirmed by the appellate court. 2. Amendment of the Execution Petition: The decree-holder had filed a petition to amend the execution petition to include additional interest, which was allowed by the lower court. The appellants objected to this amendment under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that since the original court did not have jurisdiction to amend the decree, the amendment of the execution petition was also without jurisdiction. The lower court had become functus officio, meaning it had exhausted its jurisdiction over the matter once the appellate court had passed its final order. 3. Clerical or Arithmetical Mistakes in Judgments, Decrees, or Orders: The decree-holder argued that the amendment was merely a correction of a clerical mistake, which could be made at any time under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court acknowledged that there was indeed a clerical mistake in the decree, as it did not include interest from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of realization, despite the judgment allowing such interest. The Court decided to correct this mistake itself, as it was the only court with jurisdiction to do so after the appeal had been decided. The Court ordered that the decree be amended to include interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of realization. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the original court had no jurisdiction to amend the decree after it had been appealed and decided by the appellate court. Consequently, the amendment of the execution petition was also without jurisdiction. However, recognizing the clerical mistake in the decree, the Court exercised its power under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the decree itself. The decree was ordered to be amended to include the interest from the date of the institution of the suit to the date of realization, and the decree-holder was allowed to apply for an amendment of the original execution petition accordingly. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the appeal.
|
