This revision is directed against the order of Principal District Munsif, Virudhachalam, made in I.A.No. 229 of 1989 in O.S.No.791 of 1983, dated 14.12.1999 dismissing the petition filed under Sections 152, 153 read with 151 C.P.C. declining to correct the Judgment and the decree. Third Defendant - Virudhachalam Co-operative Building Society Ltd. Represented by its Secretary is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No. 791 of 1983:- Respondents 1 to 4/ Plaintiffs have filed this suit for partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs and the first and second Defendants are brothers. According to the Plaintiffs, their grand mother Alamelu Ammal was having only the life estate in the third item of the Plaint schedule property. The said Alamelu Ammal had created a mortgage in favour of D3-Soceity which is not binding the Plaintiffs. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming that they are entitled to 3/4 share in items 1 and 2 and that the Plaintiffs are absolutely entitled to item No.3. The suit was decreed holding that the Plaintiffs are entitled to 3/4 share in Itemss 1 and 2. It was held that the Plaintiffs are absolutely entitled to Item No.3. Regarding Item No.3, the learned District Munsif found that Alamelu Ammal borrowed loan of Rs.22,000/- from D3-Society and constructed the house thereby acting only in the interest of the minors. On issue No.7, it was found that the loan borrowed by the Alamelu Ammal is binding upon the Plaintiffs.

3. Though the trial Court found that the loan is binding upon the Plaintiffs' right and title in Item No.3, the same has not been mentioned in the operative portion of the Judgment. Hence, I.A.No. 279 of 1989 was filed to amend the Judgment dated 30.2.1988 and to amend the decree also in respect of Item No.3 and in conformity with the findings rendered on issue No.7, the Revision Petitioner / D3-Society has filed this application contending that issue No.7-specific issue has been framed to the effect as to whether the mortgage created by Alamelu Ammal in respect of Item No.3 of the Plaint items is binding on the Plaintiffs. The said issue has been answered in favour of the third Defendant. Answering issue No.7, the trial Court found that the loan is binding upon the right of the Plaintiffs in Item No.3. But the same was omitted to be mentioned in the operative portion of the Judgment and decree. Hence, this application has been filed under Sections 152, 153 and 151 C.P.C.

4. The Plaintiffs have filed the counter statement resisting the application contending that the third Defendant-Society ought to have filed only an appeal. The application seeking for amendment of the Judgment and the review of the Judgment is only to circumvent the remedy by way of filing the appeal. The application has not been filed within the time. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act along with this petition has been returned but the same has not been re-presented. Hence, the application in I.A.No. 279 of 1989 for amendment of judgment and decree is not maintainable. If any Review Application has been filed, it would expose the hollowness of the application seeking the amendment of the Judgment.

5. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application finding that the omission is neither a clerical mistake nor an omission and that the same cannot be sought to be amended under Sections 152 and 153 C.P.C. It was also found that remedy is available to the third Defendant only by way of filing the appeal before the Appellate Court.

6. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the application, seeking the amendment of the Judgment and decree, the Revision Petitioner/D3- Society has preferred this revision.

7. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that when the issue No.7 was answered in favour of D3-Society holding that Plaintiffs' right in Item No.3 is subject to the mortgage in favour of D3-Society. The same ought to have b