Common Order: (B. Chandra Kumar, J.)

Heard the learned counsel.

2. Since all these Applications are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

In the suit in C.S.No.14 of 1958 filed by one Dildarunnisa Begum and others for partition of Matruka properties of Khurshid Jah Paiga, a preliminary decree was passed on 28-06-1963. The parties in Application No.729 of 2007 have compromised the matter out of the Court. Accordingly, they have filed a compromise memo along with a plan signed by all the parties and consequently the compromise had been recorded on 23-08-2007.

4. M/s. IDPL Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “IDPL Housing Society”) had filed Application No.728 of 2007 along with a plan showing A-schedule property to pass final decree in C.S.No.14 of 1958 to the extent of Ac.58-00 out of out of Ac.65-00 in Sy.No.163 of Hydernagar Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Basing on the same, a final decree had been passed on 23-08-2007. The specific case of the IDPL Housing Society is that by mistake it had wrongly mentioned the western side measurement of A-schedule as 2678’-6” instead of 2853’-00” and the southern side measurement of A-schedule property as 1329’-3” instead of 1319’-3” in the plan annexed to Application No.728 of 2007 for passing final decree. It is their further contention that in fact the western and southern side measurements were shown correctly as 2853’-00” and 1319’-3” respectively in the plan annexed to the compromise memo in Application No.729 of 2007.

5. The IDPL Housing Society had also filed Application No.1084 of 2007 seeking a direction to send the final decree to the District Registrar (Registration and Stamps) under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

6. After filing Application No.1084 of 2007, IDPL Housing Society seems to have realized that a mistake occurred in attaching the plan to Application No.728 of 2007 and therefore, filed Application No.38 of 2008 stating that instead of attaching the correct plan to the compromise decree in Application No.728 of 2007, an incorrect plan was attached, where the western and southern side measurements of A-schedule property are wrongly mentioned and accordingly, the incorrect plan had been attached to the final decree passed in Application No.728 of 2007. Their specific case is that in order to bring the final decree in conformity with the terms of the compromise decree and the plan attached thereto, the Society may be permitted to correct the mistakes in the plan attached to Application No.728 of 2007 by replacing the same with a correct plan attached to the compromise memo.

7. The IDPL Housing Society had also filed Application No.259 of 2009 seeking amendment of the prayer in Application No.1084 of 2007 by adding the sentence “together with the A-schedule plan attached to the memorandum of compromise filed in Application No.729 of 2007” after the words in ‘C.S.No.14/58’ before the words “to the concerned District Registrar”.

8. Respondent Nos.4 to 14 in Application No.728 of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R-4 to R’14’) had filed Application No.11 of 2009 stating that some mistakes had crept in mentioning the measurements in respect of B-schedule land in the plan attached thereto and to bring the said measurements in conformity with the terms of compromise, it is just and necessary to correct the measurements as shown in their Application.

9. R-4 to R-14 had filed Application No.47 of 2009 stating that in the plan annexed to the compromise memo the measurements in respect of B-schedule land were wrongly mentioned and that they got B-schedule land surveyed with the electronic survey equipment and found that the correct measurements to maintain the extent of B-schedule lands as Ac.4-00 should be on the southern side 354’ 7” instead of 336’-11”, on the eastern side 693’-7” instead of 689’-0” and on the wes