This revision is preferred against the order of the Subordinate Judge at Anantnag dismissing an application under S. 152 on the Code of Civil Procedure for amending a decree passed by him by substituting survey No. 1506 for the existing survey Mo. 1027.

(2) The petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent for possession of a parcel of land which was duly described in the plaint by metes and bounds. Alter obtaining a decree in his favour, the petitioner sought to execute it but in execution proceedings he was confronted with the difficulty that the survey number of the property mentioned in the plaint was erroneous. He, therefore, applied for amending the decree by substituting the correct survey number. The Subordinate Judge dismissed that application, the aggrieved petitioner has therefore come up in revision to this Court.

(3) The learned counsel for the respondent judgment-debtor has strenuously attempted to support the order of the lower court. According to him, the proper remedy of the petitioner decree-holder is to bring a fresh suit in respect of the property covered by the survey number which he now wants to substitute in the decree.

(4) The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has argued that this is the most appropriate case for amending the decree under the express provisions of S. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, this is a simple case of misdescription of the property on account of an accidental slip or omission which could well be rectified by the court.

(5) On the facts of the present case, it seems to be clear that the identity of the property will not be affected by granting the amendment sought by the petitioner. The suit property has been described by metes and bounds, and all the necessary details have been given and the property has been correctly delineated in the plan attached to the plaint, to establish unmistakably the identity of the property. The survey number is only one of the details relating to the description of the property. A mere error in respect of the survey number cannot and will not alter the identity of the property. But this error, however, has caused difficulty to the petitioner in enforcing the decree.

He merely wants to eliminate all possibility of obstruction in execution by bringing on record the correct survey number of the property. To such a case the terms of S. 152 will undoubtedly apply. I am inclined to go further and state that of that section cannot be applied to a case like the present, it will be difficult to apply it to any other case.

(6) The legal position is extremely clear on the point notwithstanding the effort made on behalf of the respondent to show to the contrary. I would refer only to a few decisions on the point. In Jagarnath Prasad v. Jamuna Prasad, AIR 1934 Pat 493, it was held by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court that where a property has been accidentally misdescribed in a mortgage bond and the mistake has been repteated throughout the proceedings to enforce the mortgage but where there is no doubt as to the identity of the property mortgaged and the property sold at auction the court has ample power to amend the decree by substituting the correct description of the property. A judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Aziz Ullah Khan v. Collector of Shahjahanpur AIR 1932 All 587 was relied on by their Lordships.

(7) In Katamraju v. Paripurnanandam, AIR 1949 Mad 282, Rajamannar C. J. held that where a mistake had crept into the description of an item of property in the plaint schedule and the mistake had been carried over in the decree schedule, the Court has power under Ss. 152 and 153 to correct the error in the decree even after the disposal of the second appeal. To the same effect is the decision of Krishnaswami Nayudu J. in Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nathiar, AIR 1950 Mad 751.

(8) The facts of the present case are much more strong and simple than the facts of any of the cases referred to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document