H.N. Sarma, J.
1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed in Money Execution Case No. 5/2000 dated 30.8.2005 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Golaghat rejecting the prayer of the decreeholder-petitioner claiming an amount of Rs. 5,22,548.70 alleged to be still due to him in terms of order dated 3.3.1992 amending decree that was passed in Money Suit No. 6/88.
2. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the decree holder/ petitioner and Mr. P.S. Deka, learned Junior Government Advocate for the Judgment debtor-State.
3. The plaintiff-decreeholder filed the above suit claiming compensation on account of the damage of a deluxe bus that was caused due to burning by miscreants which was under requisition of the State-respondents.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement and ultimately vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.1991 the learned Assistant District Judge, Golaghat decreed the suit decreeing a sum of Rs. 2,03,925.50 against the State. The aforesaid amount was in addition to the earlier amount of Rs. 1,04,000 paid by the State to the plaintiff-decreeholder on the said amount. The suit was decreed along with cost of Rs. 10,300 in favour of the plaintiff. In the judgment so passed by the learned trial court, it was also directed that if the decreetal amount is not paid within 3 months from the date of the order, daily loss of earning of Rs. 150 would further be added till full payment. The State unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment and decree before the High Court. Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal on 12.6.2000.
5. The decree holder put the aforesaid decree into execution by filing Money Execution Case No. 5/2000. Before filing the execution case, the decree holder filed an application for amendment of the decree passed in the suit. In making prayer for amendment of the decree it was contended that as per notification issued by the Government of Assam the daily loss is to be counted at the rate of Rs. 250 per day, although it was incorporated in the judgment that such loss to be Rs. 150 per day. The contention of the decree holder was that the aforesaid circular could not be shown and proved at the time of hearing of the suit, consequently the aforesaid circular/notification enhancing the daily loss from Rs. 150 to 250 was not taken note of this enhancement and as such the same needs to be rectified.
6. The learned trial court after hearing the parties amended the decree by allowing daily loss at the rate of Rs. 250 per day from 4.6.1985, i.e., from the date of burning of the vehicle till the date of filing of the suit dated 4.5.1988. The learned trial court also amended the decree by incorporating therein calculating the daily loss of earning at the rate of Rs. 250 per day which comes to Rs. 3,60,578.70 as on 3.3.1992, i.e., the date of the order.
7. The order dated 3.3.92, disclose that the learned trial court passed the aforesaid order in exercise of powers vested on him under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the CPC, which provides that 'Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accident slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court'.
8. A reading of the impugned order further disclose that although the learned trial court categorically stated that decree has been amended, in fact in the garb of amending the decree the limits of liability of the judgment debtor to a substantial extent has also been increased by awarding the judgment itself. Thus, by amending the said judgment, the judgment debtor is saddled with the liability to pay daily loss at enhanced rate of Rs. 250 per diem.
9. Admittedly, the enhancement of the liability to pay the daily loss at the rate of Rs. 250 perdiem was incorporated in the notification issued by the State and it is also an admitted fact that the aforesaid notification did not form part of the record of the suit. It is not a mere rectification of figure from Rs. 150 to 250 but in fact by such rectification the judgment debtor is saddled with further higher liability with the plaintiff/judgment debtor. Neither the order dated 3.3.1992 disclose nor the plaintiff claims for the amendment on the available ground of accidental error or omission or arithmetical or clerical mistake in the judgment. The suit was decreed on 16.12.1991 and the judgment debtor filed an application for amendment of the decree on 3.2.1992 under Section 151 and 152 CPC. The said application also cannot be treated to be a petition for review of the judgment, in as much as, the statutory period as prescribed by law for such review already over by that time. In fact the plaintiff also claimed the aforesaid amount of higher compensation to be included by amending the decree and the learned trial court also passed the order in exercise of powers under Section 152 of the CPC. It is also clear that by the said order the learned trial court has in fact reviewed and modified substantial part of the Judgment itself. It is no doubt true that the defendants-judgment debtor has not challenged the aforesaid order before any higher court but nonetheless since the aforesaid order is the source of right claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner requiring adjudication in the instant petition. This court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 115 CPC is not precluded from looking into the validity/legality or correctness of the said order, if such a defect is glaring on the face of the record.
10. It is seen from what has been discussed above that the learned trial court absolutely had no jurisdiction vested on him by law to amend the judgment itself by substantially enhancing the liability of the State defendant than what was original decreed in the garb of amendment and such amendment can only be made only on specific ground as mentioned above and in terms of Section 152 CPC. Record disclose that the decree holder thereafter filed another application dated 11.3.2002 for further amendment of the decree in terms of the aforesaid order dated 3.3.1992 and the same was also allowed by the learned trial court in Misc. (J) Case No. 3/2001 vide order dated 11.3.2002, By the said order the decree was further amended to the effect that if the decreetal amount is not paid within 3 months from the date of order i.e., from 3.3.1992, daily loss of earning of Rs. 250 per day shall further be added till full payment.
11. Being armed with the aforesaid two orders the decree holder filed an amended execution petition on 15.8.2002 claiming amongst others, daily compensation at the rate of Rs. 250 per day from 3.3.1992 also as decreetal amount to be paid by the judgment debtor. The learned trial court, in view of the earlier orders allowed the prayer of the decree holder and directed the judgment debtor to pay farther amount of Rs. 2,88,000 to the decree holder immediately along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of amended decree, i.e., 11.3.2002. The said order, however, disclose that the entire amount of decree of Rs. 3,60,580 along with cost of the decree was paid by the judgment debtor within 26.6.2002. By the said order it was clarified that the decree holder is entitle to recover Rs. 250 per day from 3.3.1992 to 10.4.1995 amounting to Rs. 2,88,000.
12. The decree holder thereafter filed another application dated 4.7.2001 before the learned executing court alleging non payment of Rs. 250 per day and, thus, claimed further amount of Rs. 5,22,548.70 from the judgment debtor. The learned executing court having recorded the assertion of the judgment debtor held that they had paid Rs. 3,70,878.70 to the decreeholder and having found that the original decree having satisfied rejected the execution proceeding vide order dated 30.8.2005.
13. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it transpires from the record that the source of right to claim for enhanced amount of compensation by the plaintiff-decree holder is the amended order dated 3.3.1992 passed by the learned trial court amending the judgment and decree passed in the suit on 16.12.1991. The manner and method of exercise of the power in passing the said amendment by the learned trial court has been discussed above , and again herein reiterated that in the name of amending the decree, the learned trial court was not empowered and authorised by law to amend the judgment itself and saddle with higher liability by amending the judgment itself. Thus, the source of claim of the plaintiff-decreeholder being void and ab initio, no further claim can be made by the plaintiff-decree holder. However, whatever further amount has been paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 3.3.1992 need not be recovered from him.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and accordingly it is dismissed.
15. No costs.