ORDER : V. Chitambaresh, J. The property situate right in front of the High Court of Kerala has been embroiled in litigation for the past over 29 years. The easy physical access to the portals of Justice has perhaps led to the continued litigation by the parties. 2. I.A. Nos. 2047/2010 & 2266/2016 have been filed to amend the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 disposed of by judgment dated 25.2.2005 reported in Themma v. Infant Jesus Church, 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 799 (Kerala) : 2005 (4) KLT 296 (D.B.). This Court by the said judgment decreed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 05.03.1984 in reversal of the decree of the trial court. The trial court had granted only a decree for return of the amount paid as advance on the premise that prior sanction was not obtained by the defendant church as per Canon Law to enter into a contract. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.13976/2005 by order dated 22.07.2005 declined to interfere with the judgment of this Court. I.A. No. 4943/2005 in O.S. No. 857/1987 under Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ['the Act' for short] to get the sale deed executed accordingly is pending. 3. The property which is the subject matter of the suit has been specifically described in the agreement for sale in Malayalam and its English translation is to the following effect:- "The property in Survey No.328/1 (of approximately 13 cents 100 square links) in Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District with a building bearing No. 37/ 29 and trees thereon." The property has not been described with reference to boundaries and therefore no question of any conflict between the boundaries and extent exists in regard to its identification by the parties. The daughter of the first plaintiff (since dead) has filed I.A. Nos. 2047/2010 and 2266/2016 for amendment of the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 as stated above. I.A. No. 2047/2010 has been filed to amend the decree by incorporating the boundaries of the property and I.A. No. 2266/2016 has been filed to amend the decree by incorporating the extent as 15.765 cents. 4. We found that the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 does not contain any schedule of the property at all and we raised a query as to the necessity for amendment in the circumstances. 4. We found that the decree in A.S. No. 11/1993 does not contain any schedule of the property at all and we raised a query as to the necessity for amendment in the circumstances. The answer to the query was that the extent of the land has been found to be 15.765 cents on measurement by the Advocate Commissioner deputed in I.A. No. 4943/2005. It is reported that the defendant has filed objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 11.12.2007 and the same is pending consideration. Thus the identity and description of the property for incorporation in the sale deed to be executed through court is yet to be finalised by the court below. 5. The daughter of the first plaintiff however on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner filed I.A. Nos. 7656/2008 and 841/2009 for amendment of the plaint in tune therewith. The court below by order dated 31.01.2009 allowed the applications granting amendment of the plaint specifying the boundaries of the property. The boundaries have been permitted to be incorporated in such a manner that the extent of the property agreed to be conveyed would swell tip to 15.765 cents. The order allowing the amendment of the plaint after the disposal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13976/ 2005 has been challenged by the defendant in W.R(C) No. 21613/2009. Hence the above Writ Petition is considered along with I. A. Nos. 2047/2010 and 2266/2016 in A.S. No. 11/1993 and F.A.O. Nos. 227/2008,268/2009 & 269/2009. F.A.O. No. 227/2008 arises out of an order refusing interim prohibitory injunction against effecting further construction in the decree scheduled property. F.A.O. Nos. 268/2009 & 269/2009 arise out of orders refusing interim mandatory injunction to restore a part of the compound wall and to remove a temporary shed and arch. 6. We heard Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the daughter of the first plaintiff, Mr. Pius C. Mundadan, Advocate on behalf of the second plaintiff and another as well as Mr. K.L. Joseph, Advocate on behalf of the defendant. 7. We shall extract Section 22 of the Act for easy resolution of the dispute: 22. 6. We heard Mr. T. Sethumadhavan, Senior Advocate on behalf of the daughter of the first plaintiff, Mr. Pius C. Mundadan, Advocate on behalf of the second plaintiff and another as well as Mr. K.L. Joseph, Advocate on behalf of the defendant. 7. We shall extract Section 22 of the Act for easy resolution of the dispute: 22. Power to grant relief for possession, partition, refund of earnest money, etc.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), any person suing for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of immovable property may, in an appropriate case, ask for- (a) Possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property, in addition to such performance; or (b) any other relief to which he may be entitled, including the refund of any earnest money or deposit paid or [made by] him, in case his claim for specific performance is refused. (2) No relief under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the court unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such relief in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including a claim for such relief. (3) The power of the court to grant relief under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be without prejudice to its powers to award compensation under Section 21. (emphasis supplied) 8. The plaintiffs primarily rely on Sections 22, 26 and 28 of the Act in support of their pica to alter the description (boundaries and extent) of the property. A person suing for the specific performance of a contract may in addition ask for possession or partition and separate possession of the property under Section 22(1)(a) of the Act. Any other relief including the refund of the amount paid can also be asked for under Section 22(1)(b) of the Act in case the claim for specific performance is refused. The plaintiffs neither seek possession or partition and separate possession by way of amendment nor has the claim for specific performance been refused. The alteration of the description of the property by changing its boundaries and extent cannot be termed as a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the nature sought. The plaintiffs neither seek possession or partition and separate possession by way of amendment nor has the claim for specific performance been refused. The alteration of the description of the property by changing its boundaries and extent cannot be termed as a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the nature sought. We would like to remind ourselves that we are on Section 22 of the Act and not about the power to correct a clerical or arithmetical mistake under Section 152 CPC. Suffice it to say that neither the boundaries nor the extent of the property agreed to be conveyed could be altered by resort to Section 22 of Act. 9. Reliance is placed on Babu Lal v. M/s Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and others, AIR 1982 SC 818 to contend that Section 22(2) of the Act provides for amendment of the plaint at any stage. It is further contended that the term 'at any stage of the proceeding occurring in Section 22(2) takes in execution proceedings as well. The Supreme Court in Babu Lal's case (supra) dealt with the grant of relief of possession in addition to specific performance under Section 22(1)(a) of the Act. This was in consonance with the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 casting an obligation on the seller to give possession to the buyer. Section 22(1)(a) of the Act has no application at all and Section 22(1)(b) of the Act would apply only in case specific performance is refused which is not so here. It is only 'such relief falling under Sections 22(1)(a) or 22(1)(b) of the Act that could be claimed at any stage of the proceedings as per the proviso thereto. Babu Lal's case (supra) has been followed in Gopalakrishnan v. Sarojini, 1985 KLT 1167 wherein Mr. Justice K.S. Paripooman has struck a note of caution. It is only in 'an appropriate case' as discernible from Section 22(1) of the Act can the additional relief be permitted to be sought. We are convinced that this is not an appropriate case where the plaintiffs can be permitted to seek amendment even assuming that the same is an additional relief as projected. 10. Section 26 of Act for rectification of the instrument cannot also be called in aid in the absence of proof of fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties in expressing their real intention. 10. Section 26 of Act for rectification of the instrument cannot also be called in aid in the absence of proof of fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties in expressing their real intention. The Supreme Court delineating the contours of Section 26 of the Act observed in Subhadra & Ors. v. Thankam, 2010 (11) SCC 514 as follows:- "16. Furthermore, the question of rectification in terms of Section 26 of the Act would, thus, not arise. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act would be attracted in limited cases. The provisions of this section do not have a general application. These provisions can be attracted in the cases only where the ingredients stated in the section are satisfied. The relief of rectification can be claimed where it is through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties that real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument. Even then, the party claiming will have to make specific pleadings and claim an issue in that behalf." (emphasis supplied) The limited application of Section 26 of the Act was reiterated in Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Raj kumar & Anr., 2013(3) SCC 801 wherein it was inter alia observed as follows:- "Thus in view of the above, it can be held that Section 26 of the Act has a limited application, and is applicable only where it is pleaded and proved that through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, the real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument. Such rectification is permissible only by the parties to the instrument and by none else." (emphasis supplied) 11. We may at the outset mention that the plaintiffs have not sought rectification of the instrument (the agreement for sale) either in the suit or by an interlocutory application. The plaintiffs have only sought rectification of the decree by incorporating the boundaries and extent of the property agreed to be conveyed. There is no pleading much less any proof to establish fraud of any sort by the defendant in entering into a contract for sale of 13 cents and 100 Sq.links. There is paucity of evidence to hold that there was a meeting of minds to convey 15.765 cents even though the agreement in the written form reflected only 13 cents and 100 Sq.links. There is paucity of evidence to hold that there was a meeting of minds to convey 15.765 cents even though the agreement in the written form reflected only 13 cents and 100 Sq.links. A mutual mistake can creep in only when the agreement in the written form does not expressly state the meeting of the minds of the contracting parties. There may perhaps be a scope for mutual mistake if there is a conflict between the boundaries and extent in which case only the boundaries would prevail. Here is a case where the property has not been described with reference to boundaries at all in the suit agreement and only the extent is specified. There is no scope for any ambiguity in the identification of the property covered by the agreement for it to be followed up by a sale deed in performance of the contract. 12. It is in evidence that the defendant was prompted to enter into an agreement for sale with the plaintiffs only because they were even otherwise in occupation of the same as tenants. The emphasis was therefore on the building bearing Door No.37/29 with the appurtenant land totalling to about 13 cents and 100 Sq.links in approximation. The whole compound of extent 19 cents owned by the defendant comprises of two buildings - one covered by the agreement and another leased to a lawyer. A parapet wall in between the buildings occupied by the plaintiffs and the lawyer was constructed in the year 1993 much after the execution of the agreement for sale. The counter affidavit filed by the defendant in I.A. No.7655/2008 for amendment of the plaint throws light on the probable time of construction of the parapet wall. The parapet wall was evidently not in existence at the time the agreement for sale dated 05.03.1984 was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The parapet wall cannot therefore be the criteria for fixing the boundary of the property agreed to be conveyed under the agreement for sale. It is not as if the defendant has no other land therein whereas the property covered by the agreement for sale is only a part of the larger extent still retained by the defendant. 13. The parapet wall cannot therefore be the criteria for fixing the boundary of the property agreed to be conveyed under the agreement for sale. It is not as if the defendant has no other land therein whereas the property covered by the agreement for sale is only a part of the larger extent still retained by the defendant. 13. It appears that the Advocate Commissioner deputed by the court below in I.A. No. 4943/2005 has measured the property upto the parapet wall and reported the extent as 15.765 cents. It is on that premise has the daughter of the first plaintiff filed I.A. Nos. 7656/2008 and 841/2009 in O.S. No. 857/1987 to have the schedule of the plaint amended. It is true that the court retains control till the execution of the sale deed and the delivery of possession of the property in a suit for specific performance. Reference in this connection can be had to Brahmanand v. Rajan, 2012 (4) KLT 540 in regard to correction of a plaint or the decree. But amendment of the plaint and the decree to incorporate the boundaries and alter the extent cannot be freely granted after the decree has become final by long drawn litigation. The court should be extremely cautious in its approach since serious prejudice would be caused to the defendant who is already worsened in the litigation. The court below erred in allowing I.A. Nos. 7656/2008 and 841/2009 in O.S. No. 857/1987 for amendment on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The common order of the court below allowing the applications is therefore set aside in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. All the parties agree that the western boundary of the property covered by the agreement for sale belongs to the defendant and is not a road as described in the plaint schedule. This mistake can be corrected during the finalisation of the draft sale deed by the court below after considering the objections to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The power is abundant in the court below to execute a 'proper conveyance' as is discernible from Section 28(3) of the Act where under minor discrepancies if any can be very well be corrected. The power is abundant in the court below to execute a 'proper conveyance' as is discernible from Section 28(3) of the Act where under minor discrepancies if any can be very well be corrected. The term 'proper conveyance' can be found in Section 55(1)(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in regard to the liabilities of a seller to the buyer. Of course care should be taken to see that the substratum of the agreement executed is not in any way lost or mutilated lest it prejudices the parties. The court below shall decide as to how best the extent of 13 cents and 100 Sq.links can be carved out providing reasonable access to the main road on the north. The same shall be done in such a manner that both the plaintiffs as well as the defendant enjoy their respective property in future without any hassles whatsoever. 15. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Pratibha Singh and another v. Shanti Devi Prasad & Anr., AIR 2003 SCC 643 wherein it has inter alia been held as follows: "Under Order 21, Rule 32 of the CPC, a decree for specific performance of a contract, on failure to obey, may be enforced by the judgment debtor being detained in civil prison. Order 21, Rule 34 provides the procedure for execution of documents pursuant to a decree, where a decree is for the execution of a document, the decree holder may prepare a draft of the document in accordance with the terms of the decree and deliver the same to the court. Thereupon the court shall cause the draft to be served on the judgment debtor together with a notice requiring his objections, if any, to be made out within time as the court fixes in this behalf, where the judgment debtor objects to the draft, his objections shall be stated in writing and then determined. The draft shall be approved or altered consistently with the finding arrived at by the court". (emphasis supplied) 16. The proceedings have come to a fag end and it is unnecessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the orders declining prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, interest of justice would be met by directing the parties to maintain status quo as on today till the court below takes the proceedings to a logical end. (emphasis supplied) 16. The proceedings have come to a fag end and it is unnecessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the orders declining prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, interest of justice would be met by directing the parties to maintain status quo as on today till the court below takes the proceedings to a logical end. The court of the Subordinate Judge of Ernakulam shall endeavour to give effect to the decree for specific performance in the light of the observations above within four months. 17. I.A. Nos. 2266/2016 and 2047/2010 in A.S. No. 11/1993 are dismissed. W.P.(C) No. 21613/2009 is allowed. F.A.O. Nos. 227/2008,268/2009 & 269/2009 are disposed of. No costs.