IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 96 of 2008(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, SAKTHIKULANGARA BRANCH,SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. PAUL DANIEL, S/O.DANIEL FERNANDEZ, RESIDING AT THAYYIL HOUSE,KALLUPURAM, SAKTHIKULANGARA,KOLLAM. 2. S.DANIEL, S/O.SOLOMON, RESIDING AT PUTHENTHURUTHU, VII WARD,SAKTHIKULANGARA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.96/2008 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.306/1998 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.306/98 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM DTD. 15/12/2003. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.306/98 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM DTD. 15/12/2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.306/1998 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM DTD. 7/11/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.306/98 OF THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM DTD. 15/12/2003. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2005/07 IN OS.NO.306/98 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM DTD. 21/07/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.96 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Additional Sub Judge, Kollam in I.A.No.2005/2007 in O.S.No.306/1998. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application stating that “Since the decree is drafted exactly in terms of the Judgment, the petition is dismissed”. The prayer in the writ petition is to correct the decree. The learned Subordinate Judge cannot be found fault with, when there is no prayer for amendment of the judgment. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: It is the paramount duty of the court to see that the parties are not put into hardship when the mistake is committed by the curt. The suit is one for realisation of the amount under two heads. One is for realisation of Rs.1,29,825/- and the other for Rs.4,51,759/-. These two amounts are due under two transactions which is consolidated and filed as one suit. The court below originally passed an ex parte judgment on W.P.(C) Nos.96/2008 2 15.12.2003 allowing both the prayers . Subsequently, the ex parte decree was set aside and judgment was passed. In para 11 of the judgment it is made crystal clear that “So I hold the plaint claim is allowable. The plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.” Thereafter, the court granted some relief with respect to the interest portion. But unfortunately, while concluding in the operative portion of the judgment, the court omitted to consider the sum of Rs.1,29,825/-. It can only be an omission which requires to be corrected by the court. Since the prayer in the present application is only for the correction of decree, technically, the learned subordinate judge is right in dismissing the application. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner herein to file an appropriate application for amendment of the judgment as well as the decree and direct the court below to consider and pass appropriate orders. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps