For amending the cause title issuance of notice to other side not necessary.

1. This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant.

2. The first respondent herein - landlord filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur against the petitioner and the other respondents 2 to 4 herein. The said petition was allowed and an order was passed for eviction. There is no dispute with regard to the above facts. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of the first respondent filing the execution petition, one S.H. Amruthin has filed the execution petition in his individual capacity and the same was numbered as E.P.No.73 of 2001. It is stated that in the Execution Petition served on him shows one S.H. Amruthin's name alone as the petitioner and building owner. It is further stated that the schedule property was also different from the schedule property in RCOP.No.18 of 1992. Therefore, there are lot of discrepancies in them. With these facts the petitioner expected that the Execution Petition would be dismissed and he did not enter appearance. However, the learned Judge heard the execution petition after filing of counter by respondents 2 to 4 and passed an order on 28.1.2002, allowing the said S.H. Amruthin to amend the cause title so as to be in conformity with the degree without even a petition for amendment. According to the petitioner, the amendment was carried out by the first respondent behind the back of the petitioner and other respondents. It is also his grievance that, without further notice and without further opportunity for filing counter, the Court below allowed the Execution Petition and ordered delivery of possession.

3. Mr. K.V. Subramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention to the above mentioned defects would contend that the execution petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the decree is inexecutable. He also contended that the Court below ought to have heard the petitioner before passing an order of amendment. In the execution petition, particularly in the short cause title the petitioner instead of describing the Trust, has mentioned the name of the Trustee, as if the Trustee alone has secured an order of eviction. However, by order dated 28.1.2002, the short cause title as well as Clause 10 of the Execution Petition, the name of the Trust has been corrected in terms of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioner would states that for execution of a decree, proper application has to be made as per Order 21 Rule 10. There is no dispute that where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, shall apply to the Court which passed the decree or to the officer appointed in this behalf, or if the decree has been sent under the provisions of this Court to another Court or to such Court or to the proper officer thereof. In other words, for execution of a decree, proper application has to be made. Rule 17 (1) speaks about procedure on receiving application for execution of decree. It is clear that, on receiving an application for execution of a decree as provided by Sub Rule (2) of Rule 11, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to ascertain, whether such of the requirements of Rule 11 to 14 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. It is relevant to refer Rule 11.

"11. Oral application:- (1)

(2) Writtenapplication:- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule (1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely:-

(a) the number of the suit;

(b) the names of the parties;

(c) the date of the decree; (d)

(e)

(g)

(h)

(j)

(3) The Cour