IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30646 of 2008(W)
1. T.K.MURALEEDHARAN, THERAMPATTIL HOUSE
... Petitioner
2. T.K.LEKSHMI DEVI, -DO-
Vs
1. INDIAN BANK, KALLAI ROAD BRANCH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :21/10/2008
O R D E R
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