THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3376 & 3377 OF 2009 DATED:04.03.2011 Between: R.Sambasiva Naidu. .... PETITIONER And Gowtham Financiers (Regd.), Rep.by its Managing partner, Chittoor & another. .... RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.3376 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 16.10.2008, in I.A.No.219 of 2008 in un-numbered Appeal Suit of 2008 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for extension of time for complying with the objection and filing the amended copy of the decree, was dismissed. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.3377 of 2009 is directed against the order, dated 17.10.2008, in un-numbered Appeal Suit of 2008 on the file of the learned District Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for extension of time for complying with the objections, was dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. As these two matters are between the same parties and they are interrelated, they are being disposed of by this common order. 5. 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.526 of 2003 against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent for recovery of certain amount, allegedly due under chit agreement. The suit was decreed on 31.08.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,49,275/-. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal papers were returned on the ground that the decree is defective, in the sense that it bears the date 31.08.2006 on the top and different date of 18.08.2006 on the bottom. Petitioners sought amendment of the decree for correction of the date before the trial Court by filing I.A.No.525 of 2008. By order, dated 29.09.2008, the said application was allowed and the decree was amended by correcting the date at the bottom as 31.08.2006.Thereafter, petitioner produced the amended copy of the decree before the appellate Court. Mean while the time originally granted by the appellate Court, for complying with the objection, has expired. Petitioner therefore filed I.A.No.219 of 2008 under Section 148 CPC for extension of time by fifteen days for complying with the objection. However, on 16.10.2008 as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the said application was rejected. Consequently, the un-numbered appeal was also rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 6. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, petitioner stated that the delay occurred on account of the process of rectification of the decree before the trial Court. It is to be noted that the decree drafted by the trial Court was defective, in the sense that it bears two dates one on the top and the other on the bottom. 7. It is well settled that for the mistake committed by the Court, no party shall be put to prejudice. The delay therefore occurred on account of the time taken for rectification of the decree before the trial Court and for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Under those circumstances, the lower appellate Court ought to have extended the time as prayed for by fifteen days for rectification of the decree. The said application was however dismissed on the ground that there is no representation when the matter was called. 8. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition No.3377 of 2009, this Court by order, dated 24.07.2009, directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the decretal amount within four weeks. It is stated that the interim order has been complied with and the 1st respondent has also withdrawn the said amount. In the circumstances, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to have the appeal disposed of on its merits. 9. The impugned order, dismissing the application for extension of time, is set aside. Consequently, the said I.A.No.219 of 2008 stands allowed and the lower appellate Court is directed to receive the appeal papers and register the same, if they are otherwise in order. 10. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. Interim stay granted on 24.07.2009 in C.R.P.No.3377 of 2009 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th March, 2011. Tsy