ORDER :

1. The Applicants/original Plaintiffs have preferred this application to rectify the typographical mistakes/clerical errors in the name of Defendant No.5 in the cause title and the description of the suit property in the schedule of drawn up Consent Decree dated 28 April 1982 in Suit No.2134 of 1981 in exercise of the powers under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’).

2. The Applicants had instituted suit against Defendant Nos.1 to 13 for a decree of specific performance of agreement for sale dated 27 November 1978, supplemental agreement dated 14 December 1979 and agreement dated 28 March 1980, of all the properties situated at CTS No.419, 419(1-20) and Survey No.474, Hissa No.2 of Malad, Mumbai (‘the suit property).

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 11 entered appearance through Shri Shelke, Advocate. Eventually, on 28 April, 1982 pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 to 13, Consent Terms were executed by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Defendant Nos.1 to 11, and Defendant Nos.12 and 13 for and on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Consent Terms, inter alia, provided for a decree in terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint. Decree drawn pursuant to the Consent Terms was to operate as a conveyance of the property described in the Schedule appended thereto for the consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The decree was drawn up in accordance with the Consent Terms. The Plaintiffs got the decree registered with the Registrar of Assurances. The Plaintiffs constructed buildings on part of the suit property. Eventually, the flat purchasers formed a co-operative housing society under the name and style of Nidhi Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

5. Whilst the Consent decree was, thus, given effect to and acted upon, the Plaintiffs filed an application with the City Survey Officer to mutate their names in property card of the suit property. It was noticed that there were discrepancies in the area of the suit property in the property card and the consent decree. Firstly, in the property card, the total area of the suit property was shown 3423 sq. meters, whereas in the plaint and the decree, the area was shown as 3989 sq. yards i.e. 3300 sq. meters or thereabout. Secondly, in the decree, CTS No.419 was not distinctly indicated apart from the Survey No.419 (1 to 20).

6. During the course of the enquiry by the City Survey Officer, Mr. Joseph Bernard Pereira raised objection on the ground that he was not Joseph Anthony Pereira, who was impleaded as Defendant No.5. He was never impleaded as a party Defendant to the Suit and, thus, no decree was passed against him.

7. In view of the aforesaid objection and noticing the discrepancies in the description of the suit property, the City Survey Officer declined to correct the area of the suit property and mutate names of the Plaintiffs to the property card. The Plaintiffs were advised to get the Consent Decree amended. Hence, this Application.

8. Mr. Joseph Bernard Pereira resisted the application by filing an Affidavit in Reply. It was contended that the instant application suffers from the vice of gross delay and laches. It is malafide as well. Mr. Pereira categorically asserted that he was neither a party to the Suit, nor to the Consent Terms. He had never executed the agreements of which specific performance was sought by the Plaintiffs. Nor he had received any benefit under the Consent Terms. The Consent Terms, thus, does not bind him. According to him, the Consent Terms were vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation.

9. Defendant Nos.6, 8, 10 and 11 also resisted the Application by filing an Affidavit in Reply. The Defendants contended that by the present Interim Application the Plaintiffs seek to enlarge the area of the suit property from 3300 sq. meters to 3423 sq. meters. However, in none of the agreements, of which specific performance was sought by the Plaintiffs, the said area finds mention. All the agreements uniformly record that the