Correction of survey number in the plaint schedule is a bonafide mistake.

1. After the matter was heard for some time, counsel for the respondent refused to argue the matter. Under the apprehension that he has not been fully heard and his client should be given an opportunity to raise all objections before the lower court.

2. The review application has been filed only, on the ground that the distribution of property in respect of item 22 of the schedule mentioned in the decree is not correctly mentioned so far as the survey number is concerned and hence the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the decree before the trial court to amend the survey number by incorporating the correct survey number alone. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no change of boundaries is sought for and the extent is specifically mentioned in the decree and mere is no dispute with regard to the identification of the property also; but however, the trial court had rejected the amendment on the ground that since the matter had reached upto this Court by way of second appeal and the decree of the trial court having been merged with the decree of the second appeal, only this Court can amend the decree and the trial court has no jurisdiction.

3. I carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. At the initial stage, counsel for the respondent raised the following objections:

(i) Without seeking the amendment of the plaint in respect of the schedule of properties, the amendment of the decree cannot be sought for.

(ii) the matter has been taken up by way of S.L.P. before the Supreme Court of India and as such this Court has become functus officio and this Court has no power to pass an order of amendment.

(iii) The S.L.P. has been argued on merits and ultimately the Supreme Court has dismissed the S.L.P. andas such only the Supreme Court has got power to amend the decree.

(iv) With regard to the new survey number which is sought to be incorporated in the decree by way of amendment, the evidence has to be taken so far as the correlation of the old survey number and the new survey Number is concerned and the respondents should be given an opportunity to put forth his objection before the court below,

(v) By way of amendment the petitioner is now seeking to recovery more extent of property than the extent mentioned in decree.

4. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner when this Court asked the counsel for the respondent as to when mere is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property, what is the basis of the contention that the petitioner is claiming more extent than the extent mentioned in the decree and when the property has been described with prescribed boundaries in the decree what is the basis a mat there is no correlation of the survey numbers. Counsel for the respondent got wild and said that what all the wants is that the trial court can be directed to hold an enquiry and let it be an order of court. Further he represents that it is a legal Aid brief and he is fighting for the cause.

5. I carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The only ground on which the review application has been filed is that since the second appeal has been disposed of by this Court, the decree of the trail court merged with the decree in the second Appeal and as such only this Court has power to amend the decree. Hence it is necessary to sea what is the amendment sought for at this stage. The amendment petition filed by the petitioner is as follows:

“In Item No.22 of the plaint schedule properties, strike off R.S.No.1271 and insert old R.S.No. 1781 and new R.S.No.3325 and 3326 .”

The description of the property in item No.22 in the decree is as follows;

"TAMIL"

The description of the property mentioned in the decree, specifically mentions the four boundaries and the measurement is also specifically mentioned, the Survey Number is given as 127/1. Now by way of amendment, the petitioner is seeking to introduce the new survey number alo