The opposite parties No. 1 to 4 were noticed and have appeared though not present in the Court.

2. Heard on the question of limitation. On the facts stated in the application, the application for condonation of delay is allowed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff who is the decree holder and is the petitioner before this Court.

4. The plaintiff had instituted the suit for a permanent mandatory injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering with his possession and/or making any construction over the suit land. As apparent from paragraph-2 of the judgment in the Title Suit No. 24 of 1989 dated 24th May, 2004, the plaintiff-petitioner had claimed in all six decimals of land pursuant to registered agreement dated 17.10.1975 as between the plaintiff-petitioner No.1 and defendant No.1. The suit on contest was allowed in respect of the entire claim of the petitioner. A decree was, accordingly, prepared in which it got to be mentioned that the area of Schedule A land was 0.0206 hectares. On decree being so prepared, it was realised by the plaintiff-petitioner that the total area for which the suit was instituted, was six decimals but by mistake in th