Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr vs Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore & Ors on 12 February, 2009
3. The Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed the
petition in I.A.No.5353 of 2018 on the ground that the relief of
delivery of possession was not mentioned in the judgment and decree.
The petitioners have not sought for relief of delivery of possession at
the time of filing of the suit. The petitioners having slept over for a
long time came up with the present petition. The present petition filed
under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereas the
2
decision in Peethani Suryanaryana v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore
[AIR 2009 SC 2141] relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
referred to Section 152 CPC. Hence, the facts of the present case are
different from the decision relied upon by the petitioner. Further,
the Court below held that in the absence of delivery of possession in
Ex.A1, the relief sought for at this stage cannot be granted.
Section 152 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Babu Lal(D) Tr.Lr. vs M/S Hazari Lal Kishori Lal . on 4 March, 2016
8. The decision in BABU LAL's case (1 supra) squarely covers the
issues arising in the instant case. Moreover, the Court below having
permitted amendment of the plaint could not have declined to permit
amendment of decree, which purely consequential. Be it noted that
application in I.A.No.5353 of 2018 is filed under Section 151 CPC and
2
(2009) 11 SCC 308 = AIR 2009 SC 2141
4
not under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as pointed out by the Court below.
In any case, it is a settled proposition of law that misquoting of
provision of law cannot be a ground to dismiss an application if relief
sought for therein is otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Court.
1