A.G.R. Henderson, J.
1. This Rule is directed against, an order of the Munsifrejecting an application which purported to be one under Ss. 151 and 152, CivilP. C., for the correction of the decree in Title Suit No. 169 of 1937. Thepetitioners case is that he has title to a specific portion of plot No. 868the particular portion being on the east. This was set out in the plaint but inthe schedule it was described as the west. The decree has given him the westernportion. Obviously the application under S. 152 was entirely misconceived. Thepetitioner would have to make out a case under S. 151. He could not possiblyask for the correction of the judgment and decree, because the mistake is inthe plaint. Without amending the plaint and thereby reopening the defence hecould not get any relief at all. The only prayer which could reasonably be madeunder S. 151 would be that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, thedecree he obtained in that suit should be set aside and that he should beallowed to amend the plaint and have the case retried. No such prayer was made.As the prayer which he made was properly rejected, the only thing for him to donow is to amend the plaint in the present suit The rule is discharged. I makeno order as to costs.
.
Hamiduddin Ahmad vs. Moyezuddin Mondal and Ors. (25.04.1945- CALHC)
Hamiduddin Ahmad v. Moyezuddin Mondal And Ors
Hamiduddin Ahmad v. Moyezuddin Mondal And Ors
(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)
Civil Rule No. 255 of 1945 | 25-04-1945
Advocate List
- For Petitioner : Amarendra Mohan Mitra
- For Respondent : Sreenath Das, Saibal Chandra Duttand Nirmal Kumar Sen for Deputy Registrar
Bench
- A.G.R. Henderson, J.
Eq Citations
- AIR 1946 CAL 336
- LQ/CalHC/1945/65
Head Note
Civil P.C., 1908 — Ss. 151 and 152 — Application under Ss. 151 and 152 for correction of decree — Misconception of law — Application for correction of decree on ground of mistake in plaint — Held, the petitioner would have to make out a case under S. 151 — He could not possibly ask for correction of judgment and decree, because the mistake was in the plaint — Without amending the plaint and thereby reopening the defence he could not get any relief at all — The only prayer which could reasonably be made under S. 151 would be that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the decree he obtained in that suit should be set aside and that he should be allowed to amend the plaint and have the case retried — No such prayer was made — As the prayer which he made was properly rejected, the only thing for him to do now is to amend the plaint in the present suit — Practice and Procedure — Amendment of plaint
