SWAMINATHAN AND ANR. Vs. DURAISAMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the matter was heard for some time, counsel for the respondent refused to argue the matter. Under the apprehension that he has not been fully heard and his client should be given an opportunity to raise all objections before the lower court.

(2.) The review application has been filed only on the ground that the distribution of property in respect of item 22 of the schedule mentioned in the decree is not correctly mentioned so far as the survey number is concerned and hence the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the decree before the trial court to amend the survey number by incorporating the correct survey number alone. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no change of boundaries is sought for and the extent is specifically mentioned in the decree and there is no dispute with regard to the identification of the property also; but however, the trial court had rejected the amendment on the ground that since the matter had reached upto this Court by way of second appeal and the decree of the trial court having been merged with the decree of the second appeal, only this Court can amend the decree and the trial court has no jurisdiction.

(3.) I carefully considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. At the initial stage, counsel for the respondent raised the following objections: