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 12. 1981. Though as per the judgment a preliminary decree under the provisions of 0.34, 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 (5.34 were not found therein. The decree-holders filed an application for passing of a final decree in 1986 along with an application under Sec.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 0.34, 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 0.34 was passed. That was done only on 17. 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 have any notice before the de