Decrees regarding immovable property must be upheld despite minor identification errors, allowing for amendments under CPC to ensure proper execution.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D.C.C. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.03.2015 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat in Title Execution Case No. 8/14, whereby the application made under Section 152 read with section 153(A) by the Decree holder for correction of boundaries was rejected.

3. The fact of the case is that, the Petitioner/Plaintiff filed a title suit against the Respondent/Defendant being Title Suit No.30/2011 for recovery of khass possession by evicting the defendant from the suit land measuring 1 (One) Katha specifically described in the schedule of the plaint, giving the boundaries as per registered Sale Deed dated 15-02-1975. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 18-08-12 by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat. Thereafter, first appeal preferred by the defendant being Title Appeal No.25/2012 was dismissed on contest by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat by judgment and decree dated 04-12-2013. Against the appellate decree dated 04-12-13 passed in Title Appeal No.25/2012 the defendant preferred second appeal before this High Court which was also dismissed by order dated 25.08.14 passed in RSA No.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner/decree holder filed Title Execution case being T.Ex-8/2014 before the Munsiff No.1, Jorhat. During pendency of said execution proceeding the petitioner/decree holder filed an application (Annexure-C) under Sec. 152 read with Sec.153(A) before the original court praying for amendment of boundaries of the suit land for effective execution of the decree as per present boundaries of the same. The defendant filed objection against the amendment as well as in the execution proceeding. The learned Court of Munsiff No.1, Jorhat after hearing the parties rejected the application praying for amendment of boundaries by order dated 21-03-15 passed in T.Ex.-8/2014 and held that the decree had been passed on a wrong schedule. The decreetal land cannot be identified in terms of the schedule appended to the plaint and the decree. And accordingly, the execution proceeding was dropped.

4. Mr. Goswami learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Respondent/Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant never denied the location of the scheduled land Rather he admitted that suit land is a part of aforesaid dag No. 1283 covered by Periodic Patta No.76 in para 5 of the written statement.

5. It is submitted that at no point of time the judgment-debtor/defendant has ever disputed the identity of the suit land and the suit land described in the plaint. So far its identity is concerned, it is specifically admitted by the judgment-debtor/defendant in paragraph 3 of the written statement. Paragraph 3 of the plaint as well as paragraph 5 of the written statement is as below:

"3. That the plaintiff is a businessman carrying on business of Tent House. The materials required for the business are kept in his residence but the bamboos required for the purpose of running the business of his tent house are kept on a portion of the suit land in front of the kutcha house situated on the suit land."

"5. That the contents of para 3 of the plaint is partially admitted. It is true that some materials like bamboo required for tent house have been stored in front portion of the suit land in front of the dwelling house of the defendant situated on a part of Dag No. 1283 of P.P. No. 76."

It is urged that the respondent/defendant never disputed the identity of suit la