Judicial discretion allows for the correction of actual mistakes in legal documents, even after a decree has been executed, provided no prejudice is caused.

O R D E R

This revision petition is filed questioning a common order passed by the court below allowing an application to amend the schedule of the suit property and also decree at a stage where decree itself was executed by auctioning the suit property. However, delivery is yet to take place. To execute the delivery order, a commission was taken out. The commissioner pointed out that in the plaint schedule, the partition deed number of the of the suit property is described as No.87/1987 of S.R.O., Edappally instead of partition deed No.231/1987 of S.R.O., Edappally.

2. The suit was originally instituted by the first respondent-Bank based on a mortgage. A decree was passed. Since the decree amount exceeds Rs.10 lakhs and an original application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the property was put in auction and a sale certificate was issued. While taking the delivery the mistake as above has been noted. There are no other changes in the description of the property. In the suit itself, document No.231/1987 was produced and marked in evidence.

Therefore, it is crystal clear that the plaint schedule property is referable to partition deed No.231/1987. Therefore, the only question is whether the description as above can be corrected after the decree is executed. The court below allowed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no power to the court below to correct the identity of the property once the execution has taken out. Further, the execution of the decree itself has become time barred and by an amendment, the decree holder cannot be allowed to revive a dead decree. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tilak Raj v. Baikunthi Devi (D) by L.Rs. [ AIR 2009 SC 2136 ], Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others [ AIR 1964 SC 993 ], and Peethani Suryanarayana & Anr. v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore& Ors. [ AIR 2009 SC 2141 ] and the judgment of this court in Sarojini v. Narayani [ 2008 (1) KLT 516 ]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent-Bank, the auction purchaser relied on the judgment of this court inVasudevan v. Lakshmi [ 2000 (1) KLT 306 ].

3. Certainly, this is not a case where it is involving identity of the property. In fact, there is not even any requirement to file an application for correction of plaint schedule and decree, as the identity was never the subject matter of the dispute. The survey number, the extent and the boundaries of the property were not in dispute. The partition deed No.231/1987 was produced along with the plaint. Therefore, it is clear that those descriptions form part of the plaint allegation. In such circumstances, even without amending the description in the plaint schedule and without correcting the document number the decree could have been executed. In such a situation, when no prejudice is caused, there is no impediment under law for allowing an application to amend the plaint schedule as well as decree, even after the execution of the decree. The only question is whether there is a real mistake or not. The facts disclose that it was a mistake. Therefore, it is within the jurisdiction of the court below to correct such mistakes. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.