Amendments to execution petitions are permissible to correct discrepancies in property descriptions to align with final decrees, as long as they do not alter substantive rights.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

These revision petitions have been filed by the judgement debtors, challenging the amendment applications filed by the decree holder being entertained and allowed by the executing Court. In eight execution petitions, eight separate applications for amendments have been taken out and the executing Court has proceeded to allow the amendment applications, as against which, the present revision petitions have been filed.

2.I have heard Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all the revision petitions and Mr.M.V. Seshachari, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in all the revision petitions and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 5 and 6 in all the revision petitions.

3.Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would first and foremost contend that the decree holder has sought to amend the schedule in the execution petition, without even seeking amendment of the plaint and the preliminary decree, as also the report of the first Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out to the inconsistencies with regard to the extent of the property and survey numbers and state that the discrepancies go to the root of the matter and without amending the preliminary decree, after amending the plaint, the respondent was not entitled to straight away seek amendment of the EP alone.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that though a preliminary decree was passed in respect of 11 items, the respondent/ decree holder has given up items 3 to 11 and has restricted the execution petition only to items 1 and 2. He would also fairly bring to my notice that the attempt to set aside the preliminary decree by the revision petitioners was unsuccessful up to this Court, however, he would state that as against the dismissal of his application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, an appeal is pending in A.S.No.25 of 2023.

5.Pointing out to the averments set out in the affidavit in support of the amendment applications, Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel would state that absolutely no reasons have been assigned for seeking amendment and when the title is being seriously disputed by the revision petitioners, the executing Court ought not to have entertained the amendment applications. He would further contend that the amendment applications are also filed after a lapse of 25 years and considering that the suit was filed even in the year 1999, the request for amendment is hopelessly barred by limitation. He would therefore pray for the revisions petitions being allowed, setting aside the order of the executing Court permitting amendment.

6.Per contra, Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/decree holders, would firstly contend that the amendment applications were necessitated, only in order to bring the EP schedule in conformity to the final decree passed in the matter. It is his further submission that it is not as if the respondents/decree holders have abandoned their claim in respect of items 3 to 11 and in this regard, he would submit that only because of jurisdictional issues, the subject EP was filed limited to items 1 and 2 and insofar as the remaining items, a separate execution petition has already been filed and the same is pending before the jurisdictional Court.

7.Pointing out to the final decree passed in respect of items 1 and 2, Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel would submit that by inadvertence, the portions that have been allotted to the parties have been interchanged and only for such limited purpose, the a