NIRMALA V.BALIGA Vs. M.N.ABBAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE court below has by the common order impugned allowed the applications filed for correcting the plaint schedule as also the decree. The schedule to the plaint described the two items of property in R.S No.225/3 part of Hosabettu Village in Kasaragod Taluk. The resurvey number as well as the village of the property were carried over to the decree also. The decree of the trial court in O.S No.161/1995 was affirmed in A.S No.897/1997 by this Court and has become final.

(2.) THE plaintiff /decree holder thereafter sought to correct the name of the village from Hosabettu to Badeja without altering the resurvey numbers or the boundaries. The court below has allowed the application on the ground that the exercise involves only a correction of the village by recourse to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It should be borne in mind that the suit in question is one for specific performance of an agreement for sale which has culminated in the decree.

(3.) IT is of course true that the petitioner sought only correction of the name of the village without altering the boundaries or the resurvey number. But then the respondent/judgment debtor has a case that the correction sought for, if allowed, would result in the substitution of an altogether different property. The respondent contends that even Badeja village has Resurvey No.225/3 wherein the property situate is altogether different. Therefore a duty is cast upon the court below to decipher as to whether the property originally scheduled to the plaint and carried over to the decree remains unaltered even after the correction is carried out.