IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint can be amended even after passing final decree if (i) the application is bona fide; (ii) not causing injustice to the other side and (iii) does not affect the right already accrued to the defendants.

Judgment :-

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Jurisdiction of a civil court to allow an application for amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 10.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No. 3666 of 2005.

3. The said question arises in the following factual matrix:

A suit for partition as also for a decree for setting aside some deeds of sale executed in favour of some of the defendants was filed by the respondent No. 1. Indisputably, during pendency of the said suit, the defendant Nos. 3 to 7 sold their right, title and interest in favour of the appellants by reason of registered deeds of sale dated 29.06.1992 and 7.08.1992. The said defendants having not taken any further steps in the said suit, it was directed to be heard exparte against them.

4. Appellants herein filed an application for impleading themselves as parties in the said suit, which was rejected by an order dated 4.08.1993. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, they filed a revision application before the High Court. The High Court by reason of an order dated 3.07.1998 purported to have allowed the appellants to participate in the final decree proceedings, stating:

"The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for partition claiming half share in the total property. The said suit was decreed in terms of the prayer made in the suit. Before the suit was decreed, the defendants 3 to 7 in the said suit were set ex-parte from whom the present petitioners alleged to have purchased their shares. When the preliminary decree is passed, purchaser of the shares of the defendants are entitled to participate in the final decree proceedings to work out the equities."

5. Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said order, the appellants participated in the final decree proceeding. The final decree was passed on 17.12.2001. Validity or otherwise of the said final decree was not questioned. It, thus, attained finality.

6. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed an application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No. 463. The said application was allowed by an order dated 25.08.2003. Defendant No. 4 in the suit filed a revision application there against, which was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 19.12.2003 opining that the mistake was a clerical one.

7. Appellants herein filed an application purported to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said order dated 25.08.2003, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.03.2005. The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2005 dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants there against. Appellants are, thus, before us.

8. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit:

(i) The learned Trial Judge as also the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as they failed to take into consideration that an application for amendment of plaint was not maintainable after passing of a decree.

(ii) Appellants herein having been impleaded as a party in the final decree proceedings in terms of the order of the High court dated 3.07.1998, the Trial Court was obligated to serve a notice on the application for amendment of plaint as also hear the appellants thereupon.

(iii) Although entertainment of an application for amendment of plaint after a decree is passed may be permissible in law, by reason thereof, the lands in suit cannot be substituted by another.

9. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend:

(i) Amendments, which do not affect the interest of the other parties, for a bonafide purpose and for effective execution of the decree, should be allowed.

(ii) The ma