V. Chitambaresh, J.

The property situate right in front of the High Court of Kerala has been embroiled in litigation for the past over 29 years. The easy physical access to the portals of Justice has perhaps led to the continued litigation by the parties.

2. I.A. Nos. 2047/2010 & 2266/2016 have been filed to amend the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 disposed of by judgment dated 25.2.2005 reported in Themma v. Infant Jesus Church, 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 799 (Kerala) : 2005 (4) KLT 296 (D.B.). This Court by the said judgment decreed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 05.03.1984 in reversal of the decree of the trial court. The trial court had granted only a decree for return of the amount paid as advance on the premise that prior sanction was not obtained by the defendant church as per Canon Law to enter into a contract. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13976/2005 by order dated 22.07.2005 declined to interfere with the judgment of this Court. I.A. No. 4943/2005 in O.S. No. 857/1987 under Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ['the Act' for short] to get the sale deed executed accordingly is pending.

3. The property which is the subject matter of the suit has been specifically described in the agreement for sale in Malayalam and its English translation is to the following effect:-

"The property in Survey No.328/1 (of approximately 13 cents 100 square links) in Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District with a building bearing No. 37/ 29 and trees thereon."

The property has not been described with reference to boundaries and therefore no question of any conflict between the boundaries and extent exists in regard to its identification by the parties. The daughter of the first plaintiff (since dead) has filed I.A. Nos. 2047/2010 and 2266/2016 for amendment of the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 as stated above. I.A. No. 2047/2010 has been filed to amend the decree by incorporating the boundaries of the property and I.A. No. 2266/2016 has been filed to amend the decree by incorporating the extent as 15.765 cents.

4. We found that the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 does not contain any schedule of the property at all and we raised a query as to the necessity for amendment in the circumstances. The answer to the query was that the extent of the land has been found to be 15.765 cents on measurement by the Advocate Commissioner deputed in I.A. No. 4943/2005. It is reported that the defendant has filed objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 11.12.2007 and the same is pending consideration. Thus the identity and description of the property for incorporation in the sale deed to be executed through court is yet to be finalised by the court below.

5. The daughter of the first plaintiff however on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner filed I.A. Nos. 7656/2008 and 841/2009 for amendment of the plaint in tune therewith. The court below by order dated 31.01.2009 allowed the applications granting amendment of the plaint specifying the boundaries of the property. The boundaries have been permitted to be incorporated in such a manner that the extent of the property agreed to be conveyed would swell tip to 15.765 cents. The order allowing the amendment of the plaint after the disposal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13976/ 2005 has been challenged by the defendant in W.R(C) No. 21613/2009. Hence the above Writ Petition is considered along with I. A. Nos. 2047/2010 and 2266/2016 in A.S. No. 11/1993 and F.A.O. Nos. 227/2008,268/2009 & 269/2009. F.A.O. No. 227/2008 arises out of an order refusing interim prohibitory injunction against effecting further construction in the decree scheduled property. F.A.O. Nos. 268/2009 & 269/2009 arise out of orders refusing interim mandatory injunction to restore a part of the compound wall and to remove a temporary shed and arch.

6. We heard Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the daughter of the first p