Under Sec.153 of CPC, courts may amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit for the purpose of determining the real question or issue.

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order-dated 16. 2003 in R.E.A.No.38/2003 in R.E.P.No.107/1995 in O.S.No.178/1977 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri.

2. The obstructors in R.E.A No.38/2003 in R.E.P.No.107/1995 are the revision petitioners before this court. They are aggrieved by the order of the execution court dated 16. 2003 by which the execution court permitted the decree holders to amend the execution petition by amending the survey number in the description of the property as Survey No.253/2B1-A2 instead of Survey No.253/2B1-B2 as inadvertently typed in the execution petition. The executing court allowed the same. Hence the revision petition by the obstructors for the aforesaid relief.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that as per the decree of the first appellate court, the Survey Number of the suit schedule property is S.No.253/2B1-B2 and therefore the very same number was given in the execution petition also. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners unless the Survey Number in the decree is amended, the Survey Number in the execution petition cannot be amended.

5. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a mere typographical error of this nature would have to be corrected and no prejudice would be caused to any parties as excepting the Survey Number, no other details need to be amended and the property is identifiable by all the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decisions of this court reported in 1974 TNLJ 463 (Hamid Bi vs. Udayyan) and 1997(1) CTC 584 (Chinna Marudachalam v. Chinnaiya Gounder) in support of his contentions.

6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to facts and citations.

7. It is the case of the decree holders that the suit filed in O.S.No.178/1977 was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by them in A.S.No.58/1979 was allowed by the 1st appellate court. The Second Appeal against the judgment of the first appeal was dismissed by the High court. In R.E.P.No.107/1995, delivery was ordered by the execution court but the delivery was obstructed by the obstructors. So proceedings were initiated for removal of obstructions and pending those proceedings, it was found that the Survey Number in the description of the property in the execution petition was inadvertently given as S.No.253/2B1-B2 instead of S.No.253/2B1/A2. The execution court after noting that as per trial court decree the suit property is described as S.No.253/2B1-A2 held that a mistake has been crept in the appellate court decree wherein the suit property is described as S.No.253/2B1-B2 instead of 253/2B1-A2 and therefore allowed the petition, filed by the decree holders.

8. I am of the considered view that the trial court has committed an error in permitting the decree holder to amend the execution petition when the decree of the 1st appellate court is not at all amended. The case of the decree holders is that when the proceedings to remove the obstruction are pending they found that the Survey Number was wrongly given in the execution. This statement of the decree holders is not correct. In fact the Survey Numbers have been correctly given on the basis of the decree of the first appellate court dated 30.11.1979 in A.S.No.58/1979. The first appellate court also has not committed any mistake as the Survey Number given in the description of the property in the first appeal is S.No.253/B1-B2. Therefore a mistake has been committed by the decree holders in their first appeal at the time of filing the first appeal. No doubt it is true that in the plaint filed in O.S.No.178/1977, the Survey Number has been given as 253/2B1-A2. But th