9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Failure to declare proportionate shares in the preliminary decree as required by law. Analysis: The plaintiff obtained a judgment in a suit against the defendants, but the preliminary decree did not specify the shares of the parties as required by Order 20, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The plaintiff filed an application to amend the decree to rectify this omission. The Court below dismissed the application, stating that the plaintiff should have prayed for a declaration of his share in the original plaint. The plaintiff, aggrieved by this decision, filed a revision petition challenging the order. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the parties had equal shares in the business, as evident from the plaint, and the decree should have declared their proportionate shares. The defendant remained ex parte, leading to a judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff. The counsel highlighted relevant provisions of the C.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of declaring shares in partnership dissolution suits. The respondent contended that the Court's jurisdiction under Secs. 151 and 152 C.P.C. could not be invoked for amending the decree since there was no error to rectify. The respondent cited legal precedents to support this argument. However, the Court noted that the failure to declare the shares in the decree was a clear omission, contrary to the requirements of the law and relevant forms provided in the C.P.C. The Court emphasized that when parties have equal shares, the decree must reflect this fact as per the statutory provisions. The Court found no impediment in rectifying the mistake under Secs. 151 and 152 C.P.C. as it was the Court's duty to draft the decree in compliance with the law. The Court differentiated the present case from the cited precedents, stating that the decree's amendment was necessary to uphold the parties' statutory rights. Ultimately, the Court held that the trial Court had failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not declaring the parties' shares in the decree. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the Court directed the rectification of the preliminary decree without imposing costs on any party. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of complying with legal requirements in drafting decrees, especially in cases involving partnership dissolution and the declaration of proportionate shares. The Court's decision to allow the revision petition underscored the necessity of rectifying errors that affect parties' statutory rights, even if no clerical error was present, as long as the amendment aligns with the law.
|
