The application filed by the first petitioner, since deceased, before the first appellate Court for amendment of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.194 of 2003 was returned by the first appellate Court with a remark as to how the said application is maintainable. The order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The judgment in A.S.No.194 of 2003 clearly indicates that the notice issued by the respondent was declared valid from 1997 December. However, in the judgment and decree, it was written as "till 1997 December". It was only under the said circumstances, the first petitioner filed the application for correction of judgment and decree. I am not in a position to understand the logic behind the order returning the application on the ground of maintainability. In case it was a mistake, the first appellate Court ought to have corrected it. I am, therefore, of the view that the matter requires consideration by the first appellate Court.
4. The order dated 01 December, 2005, is set aside. The learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, is directed to number the application and decide the same on merits, taking into account the judgment in A.S.No.194 of 2003.
5. In the upshot, I allow the Civil Revision Petition. No costs.
To The Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.
.