The Court has the power to allow the amendment of an execution petition even after the expiry of the limitation period if it is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties and if it does not deprive the judgment-debtor of any valuable right.

JUDGMENT :

L. Rath, J. - This is a judgment-debtors revision against an order of the Munsif, Dhenkanal, allowing the prayer for amendment of the execution petition of the decree-holders.

2. The facts, shorn of details, are that the opposite parties obtained a decree for recovery of possession in respect of an area of Ae.0.001 dec. 5 kadis on 7-7-1955 and on 15-4-1966 they filed the petition for execution registered as Execution Case No. 12 of 1966. in the petition, as against Col. 7, only recovery of possession of A. 0.00 2x1/2 kadis was mentioned. On 8-12-1980 the Office pointed out the defect that from the certified copy of the decree and Schedule-B of the execution petition, it appeared that immovable property which was to be given delivery of possession was A.0,01.5 kadis, but in Co.7 of the execution petition, recovery of possession of only A.0.00.2x1/2 kadis was mentioned. An application for amendment was made on 12-3-1981 to substitute 'A.0.00.2x1/2 kadis by A.0.01 D.-5 kadis' in the execution petition and such amendment having been allowed, this revision has been filed.

3. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has urged that since the purported amendment to the execution petition was made long after the expiry of the limitation, the date of the decree being 7-7-1955, such amendment could not have been allowed. Developing the submission, he has submitted that the only provision for amendment of an execution petition is as provided under Order 21, Rule 17 of the CPC (shortly stated 'the Code') which stipulates that on the filing of the petition for execution, it has to be ascertained whether the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21 have been complied with and, if not, the Court shall allow the defect to be removed t hen and there or within a time to be fixed by it. If the defect is not so remedied, the Court is under a duty to reject the petition and where the application is allowed to be amended under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 17 (1), such amendment is to be deemed to have been an application presented on the date when it was first presented. After such stage is over, the application is admitted under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 of Order 21 and execution is to proceed. It is the sub-mission of Mr. Mohanty that once the execution petition is amended after complying the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2), it cannot be further amended thereafter, in support of which proposition, reliance has been placed on a decision in Smt. Sabitri Bala Mallick and Others Vs. Alak Ranjan Paul and Others,

4. A decree-holder applying for execution and seeking attachment of immovable property is required under Order 21, Rule 13 to mention at the foot the description of such property sufficient to identify the same and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, a specification of such boundaries or numbers; and a specification of the judgment-debtor's share or interest in such property to the best of the belief of the Appellant and so far as he has been able to ascertain the same. At the foot of the execution petition filed by the opposite parties, in Schedule B the property was described and identified as A.01.5 kadis north-east out of which Defendant had dispossessed A.0.01.5 kadis towards north as per rough sketch map and boundary given in the decree. Even though the property was so described in Schedule B, yet as against Col. 7 of the execution petition for description of the relief granted as per the decree, the opposite parties described it to be the relief granted in the decree for recovery of possession of the suit property A.0.00. 2x1/2 kadis in area as per the sketch map and boundary given in the decree, out of plot No. 1863, Khata No. 1817 in Nizgarh, Dhenkanal (as per Town Improvement Scheme Settlement). It thus appears that even though the opposite parties had correctly described the property in Schedule B to the execution petition, yet while stat