The petitioner field O.S.NO.39 of 1999 in the court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada, against the 1st respondent, for recovery of money. He has also prayed that a charge be created on an item of immovable property. The 2nd respondent got itself impleaded in the suit, as defendant No.2, stating that the item mentioned in the suit schedule was hypothecated to it. The trial court decreed the suit. A decree was drawn in terms of Order XXXIV C.P.C., as though it is a suit for mortgage.

The 2nd respondent field I.A.NO. 1456 of 2003, under Sections 151 and 153 of C.P.C., with a prayer to amend the decree. It was urged that the suit was the one, for recovery of money-simplicitor, and the decree was drawn, as though it was a suit for mortgage. The petitioner opposed the application. The trial court allowed the I.A., through order dated 19/12/2003. Hence, this revision.

Sri V.L.G.K. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner claimed a specific relief in the suit, not only for a decree for recovery of money, but also to create charge over an item of property, mentioned in the schedule, and that the decree was drawn in accordance with law.