Courts have inherent powers to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court, and must have a practical and progressive approach in interpreting and applying legislations.

1. Respondents 3 and 4 in EA 99 of 1984 in EP 68 of 1983 in execution of decree in OS 396 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff, Kozhikode "are the revision petitioners in the above two civil revision petitions. The revision petitions are against the same order by which an amendment to the EP was allowed for the purpose of incorporating the schedule of properties sought to be delivered in the EP

2. The case has a long chequered history of which we are not very much concerned in these two revision petitions. The revision petitioners contended before the execution court that the present EP (68 of 1983) is not maintainable on account of the dismissal of an earlier EP, the order on which is now pending before the Supreme Court and that the EP is also barred by limitation. These contentions only remain to be considered by the execution court and therefore we are not concerned with these aspects also now.

3. The revision petitioners have also a case that the entire decree schedule property has been delivered over and the decree satisfied and therefore nothing more remains to be executed and hence for that reason also the EP is not maintainable. That is also a contention that has yet to be considered and decided by the execution court considering the plea of the decree-holders (respondents 1 and 2) that an order for delivery of the items now sought to be included was allowed in a proceeding under S 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in an earlier EP 221 of 1973.

4. The impugned order is only one allowing an amendment to the EP for the purpose of including the schedule of properties now sought to be delivered. That order alone could be now the subject of challenge.

5. Basing on the decisions in Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (AIR 1974 SC 1126), Modi Spg & Wvg Mills v. Ladha Ram and Co. (AIR 1977 SC 680) and Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration and Others (AIR 1982 SC 17) it was argued for the revision petitioners that even though the courts are expected to have a liberal approach in the matter of allowing amendments there are four exceptions to the approach and they are (1) When new cause of action is introduced (2) When the relief sought to be included is barred by limitation (3) When it will result in irreparable injury to the opposite side, and (4) When valuable rights accrued to the opposite side are liable to be taken away. None of these objections are available in the present case because the amendment allowed by the execution court is not going to take away any such right, if such rights are there. The prayers in the EP are there and what is inserted by amendment is only a schedule of the properties which was omitted in the EP If any or all of the prayers in the EP are not allowable on any of the grounds mentioned above the incorporation of the schedule is not going to improve the case any further. The amendment stands allowed only subject to all other contentions that are available to be raised and decided in the EP.

6. 0.21 R.11(2)(f) provides that the EP should contain the particulars of the mode in which the assistance of the court is required, whether by delivery of property specifically decreed or otherwise. R.17 of 0.21 says that on receiving an application for the execution of a decree under 0.21 R.11(2) the Court shall ascertain whether such of the requirements of R.11 to 14 (of 0.21) as may be applicable to the case have been complied with. If they are not complied with the Court shall allow the defect to be cured then and there or within a time to be fixed by it. Form 51 in Appendix-I in the Civil Rules of Practice is for execution petitions and R.280 provides that defective applications shall be returned for amendment or rejected. In view of these provisions the argument was that the jurisdiction of the execution court to allow amendment of an EP is only at the time when it was filed or within a time thereafter fixed by the court and not at a later point of time on the application of the decree-holder. I do not thi