Madras High Court
S.Masutha Begum vs The Christian Education Health & on 2 September, 2014
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P.(MD)No.1732 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2014 S.Masutha Begum .. Petitioner Vs. The Christian Education Health & Development Society, Rep. by its Secretary - Chairman, Shanthipuram, Ambiligai. .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2014, made in E.A.No.12 of 2014 in E.P.No.2 of 2014 in O.S.No.256 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ottanchathiram. !For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajkumar :ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 20.06.2014, made in E.A.No.12 of 2014 in E.P.No.2 of 2014 in O.S.No.256 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ottanchathiram.
2.The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in E.A.No.12 of 2014 and E.P.No.2 of 2014 and Judgement Debtor in O.S.No.256 of 2007. The respondent herein is the petitioner in E.A.No.12 of 2014 and E.P.No.2 of 2014 and plaintiff in O.S.No.256 of 2007 and obtained a decree against the petitioner. To implement the said decree, the respondent has filed E.P.No.2 of 2014. When the said E.P. is pending, the respondent has filed an application in E.A.No.12 of 2014, to amend the provision of law in Column 'J fifth line' as 'under Order 21 Rule 35' instead of Order 21 Rule 36. According to the respondent, the mistake is typographical error. The petitioner filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, she has stated the merits of the case and that the petition filed by her to restore the Second Appeal in S.A.1737 of 2012, is pending. The learned Judge has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has not raised any serious objection for amending the provision of law and allowed the application in E.A.No.12 of 2014, for amendment of provision of law. Against the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.
3.Heard Mr.D.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
4.E.A.No.12 of 2014 is filed by the respondent for amending the provision of law, which according to him, has crept in due to typographical mistake. Quoting a wrong provision of law, will not be a ground for denying a relief sought for by a party. Further, there is no prohibition for filing a successive E.P. for implementing the decree within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. The learned Judge has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has not raised any serious objection for amendment, but all the objections of the petitioner relates to execution of decree. Therefore, the impugned order of the learned Judge allowing the application for amendment of provision of law does not suffer any infirmity, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The District Munsif, Ottanchathiram.
2.The Secretary - Chairman, The Christian Education Health & Development Society, Shanthipuram, Ambiligai.