Srinivasan, J.

1. There is no merit in this revision petition. The short facts are these: The respondents filed a suit for recovery of money due on an equitable mortgage. A decree was passed on 3.12.1981. Though as per the judgment a preliminary decree under the provisions of Order 34, C.P.C., was passed, the decree actually drafted by the Court was only for payment of money. It read only as money decree and the necessary provision which should be included in a decree under Order 34 were not found therein. The decree-holders filed an application for passing f a final decree in 1986 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application to pass a final decree. Seeing that there was no decree in accordance with Order 34, C.P.C., the application was not passed.

2. Thereafter the Court suo motu amended the decree and brought it in consonance with the judgment. Thus a proper decree under Order 34 was passed. That was done only on 11.7.1986. The decree-holders filed I.A. No. 509 of 1988 for passing a final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree.

3. The petitioner herein contested the same on the ground that he did not