(1.) This Revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. 2452/1990 who are aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in an application filed by them under Section 152 of the C.P.C for correction of certain mistakes which had crept in the description of the property scheduled to the plaint and so in the decree.
(2.) According to the revision petitioners the survey number of the scheduled property shown in the plaint was a mistake and all other entries are correct. The survey number alone had been wrongly described but this wrong description did not in any way affect the identity of the property. The only question which arises for consideration is whether on the facts the application for amendment is allowable by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 152 of the C.P.C. Section 152 reads as follows:
(3.) The question as to the powers of the Court under Section 152 of the C.P.C to amend the errors in a decree although the error may have first occurred in the parties' pleadings and may have been merely copied from them in the decree has been the subject matter of some diversity of Judicial opinion. Then when there is an error in the description of mortgaged property owing to the accidental use of the word 'west' for 'east' as deal with the decision reported in Raghulghani Vs. Uma Shenkar A.I.R. 1944 Oudh 5 and the insertion of wrong survey number as examined in Satyanaryana Vs Purnayya A.I.R. 1931 Madras 260 and such error is repeated in the plaint and the decree, the court has been held to have ample powers to rectify the error As Pandalai, Justice observed in the Madras case just cited