1. This revision is by the plaintiff and is directed against an order of the court below rejecting his application for correction of certain mistakes which had crept in the description of the property as scheduled to the plaint and so later in the decree.

2. According to the plaintiff the plaint schedule was correct in so far as it related to survey number, the acreage, the pakuthy and muri. The boundaries alone had been wrongly described but this wrong description did not in any way affect the identity of the property. This property along with others were the subject of a hypothecation bond in favour of the plaintiff's father and a decree in O.S. 6 of 1106 had been obtained thereon and sale and delivery in execution had since then followed. The mistake in the boundaries, it was alleged by the plaintiff, arose by the adoption for purpose of the plaint in this suit, of the boundaries of the just previous item 19 covered by the decree on the hypothecation bond. The defendant-respondent had duly paid the pattern reserved under the lease deed in respect of the property. He had also submitted to the decree in the case for recovery on the basis of the lease and since then been