P JAYARAMA PILLAI Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit in this revision petition. The short facts are these: The respondents filed a suit for recovery of money due on an equitable mortgage. A decree was passed on 3. 12. 1981. Though as per the judgment a preliminary decree under the provisions of 0. 34, C. P. C. , was passed, the decree actually drafted by the Court was only for payment of money. It read only as money decree and the necessary provision which should be included in a decree under (5. 34 were not found therein. The decree-holders filed an application for passing of a final decree in 1986 along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application to pass a final decree. Seeing that there was no decree in accordance with 0. 34, C. P. C. , the application was not passed.

(2.) THEREAFTER the Court suo motu amended the decree and brought it in consonance with the judgment. Thus a proper decree under 0. 34 was passed. That was done only on 11. 7. 1986. The decree-holders filed I. A. No. 509 of 1988 for passing a final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree.

(3.) THE decree-holders could not have applied for passing of a final decree before the decree ,was rectified. In this case the rectification of the error took place only on 11. 7. 1986 and within two years therefrom the decree-holders had applied for passing of a final decree. Hence the application is very much within the time prescribed by law.