J U D G M E N T

Petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by Ext.P6, order refusing amendment of boundaries of the decree schedule property which arose from a similar error in the plaint schedule. Learned Munsiff has taken the view that after passing of the decree the Court becomes functus officio to entertain such an application.

2. Petitioner obtained a decree for prohibitory injunction in O.S.No.113 of 2010 of Munsiff's Court, Kochi. That decree has become final. Alleging that respondent violated the decree by reducing width of plaint B schedule, petitioner filed E.P.No.73 of 2011. While the execution proceeding was pending, petitioner noticed some mistake in the boundary description of the decree schedule property and consequently filed I.A.No.2344 of 2012 for correction of that mistake. That application was opposed by the respondent on various grounds. Learned Munsiff by Ext.P6, order dismissed the application.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the view of learned Munsiff that after the decree is passed the Court becomes functus officio to entertain any application for correction of the decree schedule property is erroneous. Learned counsel has placed relianc