Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in original decree dated 12.01.1996, plaintiff's suit was depicted to have been decreed in toto, but the said decree was amended vide order dated 15.03.1996 to depict that plaintiff's suit was decreed regarding plot shown by letters ABCD and was dismissed regarding the house or the plot shown by letters EFGH in site plan and the said change was made without notice to plaintiffappellant. The contention cannot be accepted as the aforesaid correction in the decree sheet was made after issuing notice to counsel for the plaintiffappellant in the trial court. Even otherwise, decree has to be according to the judgment. If the decree was inadvertently framed contrary to the judgment, the same had to be corrected. It is not the case of the appellant that even judgment was corrected. On the other hand, the judgment admittedly recorded that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed regarding plot ABCD and was dismissed regarding plot EFGH depicted in the site plan Ex.P-2. Consequently, the decree also had to be to the same effect. The aforesaid contention is, therefore, completely meritless.
