IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 642 OF 2009 IN MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2009 SHRI. MINGUEL LUIS GOMES ... Applicant Versus SHRI. EUFEMIA CLARA PEREIRA AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Shri J. Godinho, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri T. George John, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 27th November, 2009 P.C.:- Heard. The present application is filed at the behest of the Original Plaintiffs in S.C.S. No.54/80. The said S.C.S. was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by Judgment and Decree dated 30-10-1996. The defendants contested the same in First Appeal No.102/1997 which was decided by this Court on 28-4-2004, ex-parte against the plaintiffs. Prior to that, the plaintiffs had filed execution proceedings in terms of the Judgment of the trial Court in March, 1997, but in terms of the Judgment of this Court dated 28-4-2004, a Commissioner was appointed by the Executing Court by Order dated 29-1-2008. It appears that the defendants challenged the said Order of the Executing Court by filing a Writ Petition which was not entertained by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Then the defendants filed an application for correction of the Judgment of this Court which came to be disposed off by Order dated 28-1-2009 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.49/2009. Pursuant to the said application that is to say Miscellaneous Civil Application No.49/2009 the word "plaintiff" came to be substituted by the word "defendant" in eighth line of page 10 of the said Judgment dated 28-4-2004, and that must have created some confusion which enabled the defendant/J.Ds to file an application dated 30-4-2009 before the Executing Court to contend that the decree had become unexecutable. By substituting the said word "plaintiff" by the word "defendant" the import of the Judgment has not at all changed as the word "defendants" in the ninth line remained. The import of the Judgment has always been that the plaintiffs had been given the option to get the sale deed executed from the defendants in accordance with the N.O.C. earlier issued on 8-8-1979, and in the alternative to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs.33,000/- plus Rs.440/- which was the expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs. The Judgment dated 28-4-2004 has been accepted by both the parties as there has not been challenge to it before the next appellate forum. The application dated 27-1-2009(M.C.A. No.49/2009) appears to have been mischievously made with a view to create some obscurity in a Judgment which was otherwise very clear. Consequently, the present application(M.C.A. No.642/2009) is hereby allowed, and as a result the application(M.C.A. No.49/2009) shall stand dismissed, and consequently the word "plaintiff" shall be retained on page 10, line eight of the Judgment dated 28-4-2004. The defendants to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs. The costs be deposited before the Executing Court within a period of four weeks. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.