The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows :

“a. Call for the records relating to Ext.P8 Common Order and set aside the same and allow Exts.P2 to P4 applications;

b. grant cost of the proceedings and

c. such other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper to grant.”

2. Heard Sri.Shiju Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Smt.P.K. Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Petitioner is the decree holder in E.P. No. 34/2010 and he bid the court auction held in the EP and obtained Ext.P1 auction certificate. Later the petitioner filed EA No.34/2015 for the delivery of the immovable properties (2 items) covered by Ext.P1 auction certificate. It is stated that the property scheduled in Ext.P1 auction certificate is on the basis of the prior deeds and in consonance with the boundaries. Since the Amin reported that the property is not identifiable, for the purpose of effecting delivery alone, the petitioner had filed Exts.P2 to P4 applications to amend the scheduled EA for delivery and the auction certificate, by citing the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said applications as per Exts.P2 to P4 were opposed by the respondents by filing Exts.P5 to P7 objections. The court below, after hearing both sides, has passed the impugned Ext.P8 order, rejecting the said request of the petitioner. It is this order at Ext.P8 is under challenge.

4. A reading of the impugned Ext.P8 order would disclose that the petitioner/decree holder has purchased the property for Rs.10,00,100/- and the sale has been confirmed in the name of the decree holder Company on 24.07.2018. The respondents/Judgment Debtors were all throughout pointing out that the property is not identifiable, presumably on account of the mis-descriptions of the property in the Schedule to the EP and EA for delivery.

5. After having gone through the impugned order this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial court that the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the schedule as sought for, is correct and proper.

6. This Court in the judgment in Chandradas. K.P. v. A.Nizar & Ors. reported in 2009(3) KHC 841, has dealt with a case of misdescription of the property in execution proceedings and has held that it is the judicial obligation of the court to ensure that the judgment debtor, whose property is being sold, is entitled to a fairly accurate description of his property so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders, who would make fair bids of the property having regard to the size, location and other features. In the facts of the case in Chandradas K.P's case supra, it was found that the description of the property, which was put up for sale in execution proceedings, did not show the existence of the house, in which, the applicant therein was residing and this misdescription by way of omission had certainly dissuaded the intending bidders from participating in the auction. It was held that the question has to be considered from the perspective of the person whose property is being sold as also from the perspective of the class of intending bidders, when they come across the sale proclamation advertised in the newspapers or any other medium. Accordingly, it was held that it is the judicial obligation of the court to ensure that the judgment-debtor, whose property is being sold, is entitled to a fairly accurate description of his property so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders, who would make fair bids of the property, etc. It will be profitable to refer para 9 of the abovesaid decision of this Court in Chandradas K.P's case reported in 2009 (3) KHC 841, p.p.845-846, which reads as follows:

“9. It is an admitted fact that the description of the property put up for sale did not show the existence of the house in which the