HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Rev.CRP.MP.No.5128 OF 2007 IN C.R.P.No.4232 OF 2005 & Rev.CRP.MP.No.5130 OF 2007 IN C.R.P.No.4231 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER: These applications are ﬁled under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the common order dated 11.04.2007 in C.R.P.Nos.4232 and 4231 of 2005. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein ﬁled two suits i.e., O.S.Nos.154 and 155 of 2003, on the ﬁle of the I- Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the respondent for recovery of certain amounts. The defendant ﬁled a written statement contesting the suit. The trial Court framed the following issues: In O.S.No.154 of 2003: a) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.05.2001 from the plaintiff ? b) Whether the plaintiﬀ gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant with regard to income tax? c) To what relief? In O.S.No.155 of 2003: a) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- by agreeing to pay interest @ 18% p.a.,? b) To what relief? Subsequently, by order dated 01.08.2005 in I.A.Nos.579 and 580 of 2005, the issues were re- cast in O.S.Nos.154 and 155 of 2003 as follows: a) Whether the alleged hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- alleged to have been given by the defendant to the plaintiff is true? b) Whether the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- given by cheque by plaintiﬀ to defendant is towards the alleged hand loan of the year 2000? c) To what relief? Assailing the said order, the defendant ﬁled C.R.P.Nos.4232 and 4231 of 2005. This Court, by order dated 11.04.2007 allowed the revision petitions and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within a period of three months. In the said order, it appears that this Court mentioned the altered/amended issues as the original issues and the error appears to have crept in owing to some mistake or inadvertence. The error is apparent on the face of the record. As the original issues and altered issues are diﬀerent in their language and content whereas in the order under review, the same issues are repeated both as original issues and altered issues. Hence, in the place of issues 1 to 3 which are mentioned in page ‘2’ as issues initially framed, it should be read as follows: In O.S.No.154 of 2003: a) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.05.2001 from the plaintiff ? b) Whether the plaintiﬀ gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant with regard to income tax? c) To what relief? In O.S.No.155 of 2003: a) Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- by agreeing to pay interest @ 18% p.a.,? b) To what relief? The rest of the order under review is not liable to be modiﬁed as the revision was disposed of on merits and the same does not fall within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The order under review is accordingly modiﬁed to the extent stated above duly correcting the error which is apparent on the face of the record. It is stated that the trial has since been completed and the matter has reached the stage of arguments. 4. Having regard to the fact that both the suits are of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. In the result, both the review CMPs are disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2011 Lrkm.