1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8th April, 2006 passed by the court of Sub-Judge (Judge Small Causes), Srinagar, in execution petition No.8, date of institution- 07.08.1991, whereby and where-under an application moved by the decree holders for amending the execution petition on 19.07.2005 came to be allowed, which shall be hereinafter referred to as impugned order.

2. This petition is outcome of a suit which came to be, filed on 11th March, 1983 and, diarized as Civil Suit No.16/N. After going through the cumbersome procedure it came to be decreed on 26.06.1991.

3. Execution petition came to be filed on 7th August, 1991 but could not be preceded ahead because decree holders were caught by labyrinth of civil courts with their layers upon layers of appeals, revisions and other procedural laws and the procedural wrangles and tangles. Ultimately the lis ended in favour of the decree holders and decree passed on 26th June, 1991 came to be upheld and thereafter executing court proceeded with the execution petition.

4. The execution petition came up for effective hearing on 19th May, 2005. It appears that Mr. Qureshi filed objections on 24th June, 2005 and resisted the execution of the decree on various grounds taken in the objections and also on the ground that the subject matter disclosed in the execution petition is a shop but decree came to be granted in respect of a room and prayed that it be dismissed.

5. On noticing this objection, decree holders filed an application for rectifying the error by amendment along with proposed amended execution petition which came to be resisted by the judgment debtors.

6. Learned executing court after hearing learned counsel for the parties granted the application and allowed the decree holder to rectify the error.

7. Heard. Perused. Considered. The bone of contention in this petition is whether the executing court was within its jurisdiction to allow the decree holders to rectify the error and whether the amended petition is to be treated as fresh execution petition so far as it relate to the room and is barred by limitation.

8. In order to determine this controversy, it is necessary to notice relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code, for short Code, herein.

Order 21 Rule 17 of the Code reads as under:

"17. Procedure on receiving application for execution of decree. -- (1) On receiving an application for the execution of a decree as provided by rule 11, sub-rule (2) the Court shall ascertain whether such of the requirements of rules 11 to 14 as may be applicable to the case have been complied with; and, if they have not been complied with, [the Court shall allow] the defect to be remedied then and there or within a time to be fixed by it.

[(1-A) If the defect is not so remedied, the Court shall reject the application:

Provided that where in the opinion of the Court, there is some inaccuracy as to the amount referred to in clauses (g) and (h) of sub-rule (2) of rule 11, the Court shall, instead of rejecting the application, decide provisionally (without prejudice to the right of the parties to have the amount finally decided in the course of the proceedings) the amount and make an order for the execution of the decree for the amount so provisionally decided]

(2) Where an application is amended under the provisions of sub-rule (1), it shall be deemed to have been an application in accordance with law and presented on the date when it was first presented.

(3) Every amendment made under this rule shall be signed or initialed by the Judge.

(4) When the application is admitted, the Court shall enter in the proper register a note of the application and the date on which it was made, and shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained order execution of the decree according to the nature of the application:

Provided that, in the case of a decree for payment of money, the value of the property attached shall, as nearly as may be, correspond with the amount due under the decree.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document