3666 of 2005.
The said suit was decreed in terms of the prayer made in the suit.
The said defendants having number taken any further steps in the said suit, it was directed to be heard exparte against them.
The High Court, by reason of the impugned judgment dated 10.08.2005 dismissed the revision application filed by the appellants thereagainst.
Appellants herein filed an application purported to be under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the said order dated 25.08.2003, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.03.2005.
Indisputably, during pendency of the said suit, the defendant Nos.
When the preliminary decree is passed, purchaser of the shares of the defendants are entitled to participate in the final decree proceedings to work out the equities.
A preliminary decree was passed against them.
462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No.
Before the suit was decreed, the defendants 3 to 7 in the said suit were set ex parte from whom the present petitioners alleged to have purchased their shares.
Appellants are, thus, before us.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, they filed a revision application before the High Court.
Defendant No.
Validity or otherwise of the said final decree was number questioned.
Pursuant thereto or in furtherance of the said order, the appellants participated in the final decree proceeding.
The said application was allowed by an order dated 25.08.2003.
The final decree was passed on 17.12.2001.
Respondent No.
The High Court by reason of an order dated 3.07.1998 purported to have allowed the appellants to participate in the final decree proceedings, stating The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for partition claiming half share in the total property.
Appellants herein filed an application for impleading themselves as parties in the said suit, which was rejected by an order dated 4.08.1993.
Appellants herein having been impleaded as a party in the final decree proceedings in terms of the order of the High companyrt dated 3.07.1998, the Trial Court was obligated to serve a numberice on the application for amendment of plaint as also hear the appellants thereupon.
It, thus, attained finality.
1 thereafter filed an application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No.
4 in the suit filed a revision application thereagainst, which was dismissed by the High Court by an order dated 19.12.2003 opining that the mistake was a clerical one.
3 to 7 sold their right, title and interest in favour of the appellants by reason of registered deeds of sale dated 29.06.1992 and 7.08.1992.
The said question arises in the following factual matrix A suit for partition as also for a decree for setting aside some deeds of sale executed in favour of some of the defendants was filed by the respondent No.
Jurisdiction of a civil companyrt to allow an application for amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 10.08.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
