M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.779 of 1992 of the Munsiff s Court, Kannur challenges the orders passed by that Court disposing of LA. Nos. 2687/95,2688/95 and 3453/1995.

2. The suit was for a declaration that the plaint schedule house is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs, that the ownership and possession of the property rests with the plaintiff and that the defendant has no right or possession over it except as a maid servant and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to leave the house without making any claim over it and also for recovery of damages at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensum for use and occupation of the plaint schedule building from the date of plaint till date of vacating the house and for costs of the suit. The defence contentions raised were found to be untenable and ultimately, the Court passed a decree declaring the plaintiffs as the title holders of the plaint schedule property and that the defendant has no substantive right over the plaint schedule property and also granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule building. The plaintiff was also allowed costs of the suit.

3. A.S.34 of 1994 before the District Court, Thalassery, filed by the defendant challenging the decree did not yield any relief and thereupon E.P. 387/1994 was filed by the revision petitioner for execution of the decree. It was at that stage that the plaintiff came to know that by an in advertant omission, there was actually no schedule incorporated in the plaint. I. A. 2687/1995 was therefore, filed invoking Ss.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint including the schedule of property. The prayer in I. A. 2688/95 was for amendment of the decree to make it in conformity with the amended plaint. The prayer in I.A. 3453/95 was to call for the records from the execution court. All these petitions were dismissed. It is the legality, regularity and propriety of the aforesaid orders that are impugned herein.

4. I have heard both sides.

5. The reason given for not calling for records from the execution court was that the petition to amend the plaint and decree have been dismissed and the petition was hence unnecessary. The reason for dismissal of the applications for amending the plaint and decree was that the contention that the omission was inadvertant was unacceptable. The Court opined that after the final disposal of the suit through the appellate judgment such applications were untenable. It is also observed that in case the application for amendment of plaint was allowed that will require an opportunity to the defendant to file additional written statement and in case of dispute regarding identity further enquiry will be required. The Court was also of the view that since the suit is disposed of and the disposal is confirmed by the appellate court, there was no suit available before the trial court in which amendments could be effected. The Court was also of the view that if the petitions are allowed it will virtually reopen the case which was already disposed of on merits.

6. The above observations of the trial court are seriously challenged by the revision petitioner. It is pointed out that Ss.151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates amendments and corrections as sought for herein and that the Court below erred in proceeding as though it had no jurisdiction after the disposal of the suit. Case Law was relied on to show that even after passing of the appellate judgment the trial court still has jurisdiction to invoke powers under Ss.151 and 152 of the Code so as to render justice to the parties.

7. This indeed is a unique, rather unusual case where the entire plaint schedule was missing when the case went to trial and the parties gave evidence and also when the rival contentions were elaborately argued before the appellate Court as well. No one noticed that there was no schedule at all in the plaint at any time until t