IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the executing court has the authority to correct the boundaries of a decreed property under Section 152 and Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that a successful plaintiff is not deprived of the fruits of a decree due to inadvertent errors in the description of the property.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mr. A.U. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Nagaon in Title Execution Case No. 10/2015.

3. Late Jonab Ali had purchased a plot of land from Md. Rahimuddin, Md. Somed Ali and Md. Noor Jahan Bibi on execution of a registered sale deed. The boundary of the land is like this:

4. Thereafter, they had to file a suit for the said plot of land seeking a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over the said plot of land. In the plaint, the four boundaries of the land was given as under:

5. The said suit i.e. T.S. No. 77/1995 was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was filed and the said appeal being Title Appeal No. 14/2004 was dismissed. The matter was brought to the High Court when a Regular Second Appeal was filed. The RSA No. 72/2006 was also dismissed.

6. Thereafter, the decree holders filed the Title Execution Case No. 10/2015.

7. At this stage, it was discovered that the four boundaries of the suit property was erroneously described in the plaint. Therefore, the decree holders filed an application before the executing court praying for correction of the four boundaries of the decreetal property. The executing court rejected the said application on the ground that the executing court cannot order amendment of the decree.

8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

9. In Pratibha Singh vs. Shanti Devi Prasad, (2003) 2 SCC 330, the Supreme Court has held as under:

“17. When the suit as to immovable property has been decreed and the property is not definitely identified, the defect in the court record caused by overlooking of provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 CPC is capable of being cured. After all a successful plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or Section 47 CPC depending on the facts and circumstances of each case - which of the two provisions would be more appropriate, just and convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error, not affecting the merits of the case, it may be corrected under Section 152 CPC by the court which passed the decree by supplying the omission. Alternatively, the exact description of decretal property may be ascertained by the executing court as a question relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. A decree of a competent court should not, as far as practicable, be allowed to be defeated on account of an accidental slip or omission. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it would be more appropriate to invoke Section 47 CPC.”

10. In Narattam Barman vs. Sumit Sutradhar and Others, (2021) 2 GLR 321, this Court has held as under:

“In Pratibha Singh and Another (Supra), the Apex Court in order to satisfy a decree in favour of the decree holders in a suit for specific performance of contract for agreement for sale of plot of land held that where there was no determination by the executing court that the immovable property as delineated and demonstrated in the map accompanying the draft sale deed as the property forming the subject matter of the agreement to sell and the decree, appropriate direction can be taken care for delivery of possession to the plaintiff decree holder. Further, it was held that in such situation the executing court can resort to Section 152 or Section 47 of the CPC considering the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also held