This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the order in I.A. No. 882 of 2003 in O.S. No. 227 of 1981 dated 17.7.2006, rejecting the review application seeking review of the final decree passed in I.A. No. 752 of 1988 dated 1.3.1990.

2. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition and after contest, preliminary decree was passed on 18.9.1981 ordering to divide the 2nd and 4th schedule properties into three equal shares and allotting one each shares to the plaintiff/first respondent herein, 1st defendant's heirs viz., defendants 7 to 9/respondents 3 to 5 herein and 4th defendant/revision petitioner herein. The first respondent filed appeal against the said preliminary decree in A.S. No. 48 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and the same was also dismissed along with cross objection. After dismissal of the first appeal, petitioner herein and Others filed petition for final decree of partition. Accordingly, final decree was passed on 1.3.1990 in I.A. No. 752 of 1988.

3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent/plaintiff did not file any petition to pass final decree. In the said final decree, 2nd and 4th schedule properties were divided into three equal shares, wherein the plaintiff, first defendant's heirs viz., defendants 7 to 9 and 4th defendant were allotted one share each. According to the petitioner, 1/3rd share belongs to the petitioner, who is 4th defendant in the suit, was not allotted in the 2nd and 4th schedule properties. Hence he filed a petition to amend the final decree passed on 1.3.1990 in I.A. No. 752 of 1988 by filing I.A. No. 882 of 2003.

4. The said application was opposed by the respondents stating that there is no clerical or arithmatical error in the final decree passed on 1.3.1990 and the petitioner, if aggrieved ought to have filed appeal against the final decree order and no amendment can be ordered in the final decree. According to the respondents, even if there is mistake, since the application was filed beyond the period of 12 years, i.e, after expiry of the period for execution of the decree, the decree cannot be now executed. Thus, it was pleaded that the petition was affected by latches, acquiesance and waiver.

5. The Court below held that the non-allotment of share to the petitioner in final decree cannot be treated as clerical or arithmatical error and if the petitioner is really affected by the final decree, he ought to have preferred an appeal against the final decree and in the absence of such specification in the final decree, the amendment sought for after a period of more than 12 years cannot be countenanced. The Court below also ordered that the final decree was passed on 1.3.1990 and the present petition for amendment of the decree was presented on 30.3.2003 and therefore, the petition filed is barred by the law of limitation, dismissed the said application seeking amendment of the decree.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/4th defendant argued that the first respondent herein/plaintiff, having filed the suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share, which was decreed on 18.9.1981 and confirmed in A.S. No. 48 of 1982 by the learned Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur; and the respondents 3 to 5 herein having filed final decree application to allot their respective shares, pursuant to which an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who divided the 2nd and 4th items of properties and allotted the respective shares to the petitioner and respondents herein based on which the Court below passed final decree on 1.3.1990; and while drafting the final decree the Court below omitted to mention the share allotted to the revision petitioner/4th defendant, the application filed by the petitioner to amend the final decree is maintainable. According to the learned counsel, the execution petition having been filed in the year 2003 and the same having been return