IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30646 of 2008(W) -------------------------- OS.250/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.K.MURALEEDHARAN, THERAMPATTIL HOUSE THALAPPURAM P.O., CALICUT-673002 2. T.K.LEKSHMI DEVI, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- INDIAN BANK, KALLAI ROAD BRANCH, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30646 of 2008 W -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. Petitioners suffered Ext.P1, judgment in O.S.No.250 of 2002 of the Munsiff's Court-II, Kozhikode followed by decree for payment of money to the respondent with interest at the rate of 13.77% even after the date of decree. Petitioners filed Ext.P2, application before the learned Munsiff for correction of the judgment and decree to make the interest payable after the decree as 6% instead of 13.77% since according to the petitioners, only 6% interest is payable under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure(for short, ‘the Code’). That application was opposed by the respondent. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P3, order dated 9.4.2008 dismissed the application. Petitioners are attempting to invoke the power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Counsel contended that interest payable after the decree can only be 6% since according to the learned counsel, there is no finding in the case that the transaction in question is a commercial transaction. Counsel for respondent contended that the application for correction of decree is not maintainable and the same was rightly dismissed by learned Munsiff. 3. Section 152 of the Code provides for amendment of decree WP(c) No.30646/2008 2 to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors on account of accidental slip or omission. That provision is not a substitute for an appeal. I have gone through Ext.P1, judgment and find that learned Munsiff raised an issue regarding interest payable by the petitioners and accepted the case of the respondent that it is a commercial transaction. It is accordingly that interest was allowed at the contractual rate of 13.77% even after the decree which is permissible under Section 34 of the Code. If petitioners have a contention that the finding entered by the learned Munsiff is not correct, remedy is elsewhere and not under Section 152 of the Code. Learned Munsiff rightly dismissed the application. There is no jurisdictional error or illegality committed by the learned Munsiff in dismissing Ext.P2, application requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks