ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in E.A.No.1776 of 2017 in E.P.No.1991 of 2013 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. E.A.No.1776 of 2017 was filed under section 47 CPC to rectify the survey number of the schedule property as 3958/3 instead of 3958/2 as described in the decree dated 17.10.1995. Respondents' predecessor Jayalakshmi Ammal filed a suit in O.S.No.9974 of 1992 against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his agents or anybody claiming through him in any manner using the private road owned by Jayalakshmi Ammal, comprised in R.S.No.3958/2, and for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to remove the iron gate put up in the eastern compound wall of the plaintiff marked in yellow colour in the sketch annexed and to restore the wall in original state. The suit was decreed on 17.10.1995. There was no steps taken for setting aside the exparte decree or challenging the exparte decree by way of appeal. Therefore, the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.9974 of 1992 became final. E.P.No.1191 of 2013 was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC for arresting the petitioner and detain him in civil prison to enforce the decree of permanent injunction.

3. Jayalakshmi Ammal purchased the land bearing S.No.3958/3 to an extent of 92 grounds from Mrs.Ravai kannammal and Mrs.Tiripurasundari ammal and Mrs.Shantha kumari. She divided 92 grounds into portions and sold some portions to Consulate General of USA and retained remaining for herself. She laid a private road ie., suit private road for her own use and she granted right of way over the said private road to Consulate General of USA as per sale deed dated 05.09.1966. This private road lies at the eastern most of her property in S.No.3958/3 and lies immediately to the east of Door Nos.12 & 13 Bishop Garden. This is shown as red mark in the sketch annexed in the plaint. On the further east, the property of the petitioner in R.S.No.3958/2 situates. Due to typographical error, survey number of the suit property was wrongly mentioned as 3958/2 instead of 3958/3. Therefore, the petition in E.A.No.1776 of 2017 was filed for making rectification in the survey number in the decree as 3958/3 instead of 3958/2. On considering the rival submissions, learned IX Assistant Judge allowed the petition. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exparte decree was passed on 17.10.1995. Jayalakshmi Ammal died on 27.08.2005. She has not taken any steps for enforcing the decree while she was alive. Her legal representatives had filed a petition to enfore the decree without filing a formal petition to recognise them as legal representatives of the deceased Jayalakshmi Ammal. No Execution Petition was filed for enforcing the mandatory injunction relief granted. E.A.No.1776 of 2017 is filed 22 years after passing of exparte decree for modifying the Survey number. Arrest EP filed is barred by limitation. A subsequent suit filed in O.S.No.1578 of 2014 was withdrawn by the respondents. Amendment of description of property cannot be entertained at this distant point of time. E.A.No.1776 of 2017 was reserved for orders and then reopened for clarification. After reopening, without giving opportunity to the petitioner, order was passed. This is obviously wrong. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order of learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and for dismissing the petition filed in I.A.No.1776 of 2017.

5. Learned senior counsel for the respondents countered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and submitted that rectification/amendment now sought is only a clerical and typographical error. The survey number of the suit property was wrongly typed as 3958/2 instead of 3958/3. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondents are the