Amendment sought was an attempt to bring in to suit properties which were not included in earlier suit.

This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif, Krishnagiri in I.A.No.628 of 1994 in I.A.No.524 of 1992 in O.S.No. 190 of 1981 on 11. 1994. The respondents herein filed an application before the lower court praying for amendment of the plaint, final decree application and preliminary decree. The petitioners case is that there is some clerical error in the description of property. Therefore, it has to be suitably amended. This application was opposed by the petitioners herein and overruling the objections, the petition was ordered as prayed for.

2. The point for determination is: whether the order passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside?

3.Point: The suit was filed for partition in the year 1981. The preliminary decree was passed on 112. 1985. An appeal was preferred against the said preliminary decree in A.S.No.9 of 1988. The appellate court modified the decree of the trial court by its judgment dated 22. 1990. An application was filed by the plaintiffs viz., the respondents herein for passing of a final decree in I.A.No.524 of 1992. While the said application was pending, on 24. 1994 the petitioners have come up with the present application. By this application they are seeking a prayer to amend the plaint filed in 1981, the decree passed on 22. 1990 and the application filed in 1992 for passing of final decree.

4. The prayer in the application is curious. The prayer is for amendment of the plaint, the final decree application and the preliminary decree passed in this case. Thus three prayers have been asked for in a single application. This application is purported to have been filed under O.6, Rule 17 and Secs. 151 and 152, C.P.C. Let us now see whether the prayer can be permitted at all. The District Munsif has not at all considered the application in a proper perspective. The order passed appears to be totally a perverse one. There is no explanation given at all in the affidavit for this enormous delay. It is not stated in the affidavit that a mistake was committed in setting out the Survey number or boundaries and the mistake could be found out only subsequently. On the other hand, the only ground which is put forward is that there are clerical errors. How the clerical errors crept in is not sought to be explained. The plaintiffs have been granted l/6th share in item-2, item-4, item-5 and item-6. Item-2 describes the property was comprised in Survey No.496. According to the petitioner Survey No.498 has to be substituted in the place of Survey No.496. It is not stated in the affidavit that Survey No.498 is the correct survey number and that it has been wrongly given as 496. It is simply stated in paragraph 4 that in the place of Survey Nos.496, 498 has to be substituted. How and why is not explained in the affidavit. But the petitioners would conveniently hide under the cloake of clerical error. Then parties have gone for trial. Then, the direction of the trial court was challenged in appeal. The matter has been pending in the court from the year 1981. The plaintiffs filed an application to pass final decree in the year 1992. All these years, they have kept quiet. The clerical error was not there and suddenly according to the plaintiffs it has come to light only in the year 1994. The affidavit itself is only in the year 1994. The affidavit itself is confusing. While in paragraph 4, it is stated that in respect of item-2 Survey No.498 has to be substituted in the place of 496, it is also stated that 498 has to be substituted in the place of 495 mentioned in the preliminary decree. Not only that, in paragraph 5 it is alleged that the correct extent of item-2 is 4 acres and 30 cents. But it has been given wrongly as 4 acres, 62 cents. In paragraph 5, it is also stated that as per certain documents viz., Exs.B-2 and B-3, they are entitled to a partition of an extent of 3 acres. If the allegations in paragraph 5, are to be accepted, then it cannot amount to a clerical error. The