High Court Of Orissa
D. M. PATNAIK, PRADIPTA RAY
CHLORIDE INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT OF JUDGE, PURI - Respondent
O. J. C. 7808 Of 1993
Decided On : 08/12/1996
EXECUTION OF DECREE - AMENDMENT OF EXECUTION PETITION - DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES - INDEFINITENESS - EXECUTABILITY OF DECREE - C. P. C., 1908, S. 47.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant under opposite party No. 3, challenged the order of the executing Court allowing the landlord's amendment in respect of Column 7 of the execution petition giving out better particulars of the premises in question and secondly, the rejection of the petition under Section 47, C. P. C. of the petitioner, as well as the revisional order of the District Judge, Puri in Civil Revision No. 95 of 1993 arising out of the question of amendment and Civil Revision No. 77 of 1993 arising out of dismissal of the petition under S. 47, C. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the description of the premises in question was not indefinite or ambiguous and that the decree was executable. The Court also held that the amendment of the execution petition did not change or alter the description of the premises, but merely supplied the description to rectify an omission.
Issues: 1. Whether the description of the premises in question was indefinite or ambiguous? 2. Whether the amendment of the execution petition changed or altered the description of the premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The description of the premises in question was not indefinite or ambiguous because: a. The three-side boundaries were admitted by the petitioner to be correct. b. The premises bore a municipality holding number which itself made it easily identifiable. 2. The amendment of the execution petition did not change or alter the description of the premises, but merely supplied the description to rectify an omission.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand).
D. M. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is disposed at the admission stage.
( 2 ) THE petitioner, a tenant under opposite party No. 3, assails order of the executing Court in allowing the landlord's amendment in respect of Column 7 of the execution petition giving out better particulars of the premises in question and secondly, the rejection of the petition under Section 47, C. P. C. of the petitioner, as well as the revisional order of the District Judge, Puri in Civil Revision No. 95 of 1993 arising out of the question of amendment and Civil Revision No. 77 of 1993 arising out of dismissal of the petition under S. 47, C. P. C.
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the opposite party-landlord put into execution the decree for eviction of the petitioner in Execution Case No. 23 of 1991 in respect of the suit premises described in detail in the petition of the House Rent Case No. 5 of 1987 after the petitioner tenant lost the case in all the forums including the Supreme Court vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13279/92 disposed of on 9-11-92. The petitioner filed Misc. Case No. ll /93 under S. 47, C. P. C. challenging the executability of the decree wherein he denied the title of the opposite party landlady to the property on the ground that her name was not recorded in the R. O. R. The other ground for holding the decree as inexecutable was because of the wrong description of the property in question.
( 4 ) HEARD Mr. P. K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3, the landlady. Mr. Ray did not press the point raised before the courts below that the amendment which is the subject matter of Revision Case No. 95 of 1993 would have the result in changing the nature of the case. Therefore, the orders in that respect are confirmed and this disposes of the Civil Revision No. 95 of 1993.
( 5 ) WITH regard to the rejection of the petition under S. 47, C. P. C. which is subject matter of Civil Revision No. 77 of 1993, Mr. Ray did not press the point in regard to the absence of title of the landlady in respect of the premises in question. He, however, pressed the only point in regard to the indefiniteness and ambiguity in description of the premises in question. While dealing with this point, the learned counsel pointed out that there has been interpolation and/or manipulation of the court's record inasmuch as according to him, in the original petition the figure 965' occurring in para 4 (a) has been substituted by way of overwriting the figure 970' and this has therefore prejudicially affected the tenant's case.
( 6 ) HAVING heard Mr. Roy on this point and having gone through the original petition as pointed out by the learned counsel, I am of the view that it would not be proper for this Court to embark on the disputed fact relating to interpolation and / or manipulation in the absence of any material whatsoever. Therefore, this submission of Mr. Ray is not accepted.
( 7 ) THE main thrust of argument of Mr. Ray is that the description of the premises is question being ambiguous and indefinite, the decree cannot be executed. The learned counsel advanced an extensive argument on this point and referred to various decision, but relied on the decision reported in AIR 1979 Cal 50, M / s. Roy and Co. v. Nani Bala, AIR 1982 Ori 86, Nand Subudhi v. Bhagirathi. Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3, on the other hand, countered the argument of Mr. Ray to the legal proposition as well as to the facts of the case and in support of such contention he relied on the judgments reported in AIR 1959 MP 384, Mst. Zenab Bi v. Wajahat Husen Karmat Hussain; (1973) 39 Cal LT 112, Nityananda Naiko v. Radhamohan Panda; (1986) 62 Cal LT 268, Jaisingh @ Gujarmal Solapal v. Smt. Rajender Kaur and the decision of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 92 of 1965, Chintamani Sahu v. Nilamani Das (disposed of on 24-7-68. The rival contentions need careful examination.
( 8 ) IN item 4 of the ori
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.