With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the orders dated 22nd August, 2008 and order dated 17th September, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sanguem in Regular Civil Suit no.11/2006 and Execution Application No.7/2009 respectively.

3. Briefly, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are as under:

The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.11/2006 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sanguem against the respondents and three others seeking permanent injunction and other reliefs in respect of the part of the property bearing Survey No.33/21. The respondents were defendant nos.2 and 3 in the said suit. During pendency of the suit, parties arrived at settlement whereby the petitioners agreed to sell to the respondents herein plot P admeasuring 2785 square metres at the rate of Rs.180/- per square meter, more particularly described in the agreement of sale entered on the same day and shown in the plan annexed thereto and duly signed by the parties. Along with the consent terms, an agreement to sale was also annexed which mentioned that the petitioners had agreed to sell an area of 2385 square metres as shown in the plan and marked as plot P for consideration of Rs.4,29,300/- at the rate of Rs.180/-per square metre. The trial Court disposed of the suit in terms of the consent terms filed and the consent decree dated 29th September, 2006 was drawn by the trial Court.

4. Thereafter, on 27th March, 2007, the petitioners by registered sale deed sold plot P admeasuring 2385 square metres to the respondents at the rate of Rs.180/- per square metre. The said plot was marked as plot P in the plan annexed to the sale deed. According to the petitioners, they realised that although they are agreed to sell an area of 2385 square metres, in the consent terms instead of an area of 2385 square metres, an area of 2785 square metres was mentioned in the consent terms. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application dated 2nd November, 2007 for correction of the consent decree which was opposed by the respondents. By order dated 22nd August, 2008, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sanguem, dismissed the application on the ground that the respondents/ defendants had disputed that there was mistake or accidental slip or error. The learned Judge placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Valji Mavji Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2008(4) All MR 580.

5. The respondents thereafter filed Execution Application no.7/2009 against the petitioners seeking execution of sale deed for the remaining area of 400 square metres. The petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of C.P.C. giving therein the various details and sought enquiry to ascertain whether the decree holders are entitled to an area of 2785 square metres or 2385 square metres. The said application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court by order dated 17th September, 2010 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of C.P.C. on the following grounds :

(i) The consent terms had clearly mentioned that an area of plot P was 2785 square metres.

(ii) The application filed by the petitioners under Section 152 of C.P.C. was dismissed holding that the consent decree can be only varied with the consent of the parties and not by the Court.

(iii) The father of the petitioners-judgment debtors had lodged complaint to the police on 17th June, 2007 stating therein that the area mentioned in the decree was 2785 square metres.

Thus, the trial Court held that since there was consent decree, the same could not be challenged by the judgment debtors and the application was liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted th