ANIRUDH SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHNA BIHARI SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants of title suit No. 355/74 of 1956/67 are petitioners here. They have come up in revision against the order dated 23.8.82, by which the learned Munsif, Sikarahna, Motihari, has amended a portion of the decree at the instance of the plaintiffs opposite parties. The only relevant facts are these. The suit having been filed by the plaintiffs opposite party, it was decreed by the trial court. The defendants petitioners went up in appeal before the learned District Judge. The appeal was dismissed, on merits. Thereafter the petitioners came up to this court in a second appeal being second appeal 522 of 1977. That second appeal was dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code).

(2.) When this chapter ended, the plaintiffs levied execution of the decree. On such an application being filed, the petitioners filed an application stating therein that the decree was in executable on account of vagueness. It then transpired that the relief claimed in the plaint was with regard to plot 1512 (part) by mentioning the boundaries thereof in the schedule to the plaint. The eastern boundary was given as:

(3.) The suit was decreed as earlier stated. In the decree, however, through inadvertence, by an accidental slip, the portion of the eastern boundary which was mentioned as plot 1511 in the plaint was written as '1522' in the decree. This was all the mistake committed in the preparation of the decree. It is obvious that the description of the eastern boundary of the disputed plot was wrongly mentioned merely through an accidental slip, and had got no bearing on the merits of the case either way. But that is not the end of the matter.