The executing court has the power to allow amendment of the execution application, if occasion so arises, provided that the amendment does not amount to amendment of the decree.

Order dated 14-4-1981 passed by Munsif, Kashipur in Civil Execution Case No. 63 of 1966 affirmed by the order dated 31st October; 1981 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Nainital, in Civil Revision No. 72 of 1981 are the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Mr. K. L. Grover, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order contents that by virtue of the application for amendment of the application for execution the respondent No. 3 had got the decree amended. According to him the execution court cannot go behind the decree. It has no power to amend the decree. According to him in the present case the amendment of this boundaries of the suit property of which delivery of possession was sought to be executed renders the suit property to be a different one from that for which decree was passed. According to him the decree having become inexecutable because of the reason of indentifiability of the suit property the execution must fail and the same cannot be revived, by means of amend ment for identifying the suit property in the application for execution without ob taining amendment of the decree by the court which had passed it. According to him the decree having been affirmed it is the High Courts decree which is executable. The decree could be corrected, therefore, only by the High Court and the executing court cannot do it. It has to execute the decree as it is. The change in the boundaries sought to be brought into being by means of amendment is unwarranted and beyond the competence of the executing court. For the purpose of delivery of possession Commissioner was appointed by the executing court. It appears from the report of the Commissioner that on the basis of the boundary given in the decree, the suit property is not identifiable and as such the decree is inexecutable. In such cir cumstances, therefore, the lacuna could not be filled up by way of amendment. Therefore, according to him the order dated 31-10-1981 passed by the learned Addi tional District Judge, Nainital, affirming the order dated 14-4-81 passed by the learned Munsif cannot be sustained and should be set aside.

2. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision in the case of Bhan Kumar Chand and another v. Mohan Lai and other reported in AIR 1948 PC 180. In the said case the partition of a village was decreed. After more than half a century when the said partition was sought to be obtained in execution of the decree, it was found that the village was so inexplicably mixed up with other village that it was impossible to find out with reference to any contemporaneous record as to which land constituted the village in question and the decree holders were unable to identify the village. Therefore, the decree holder were not entitled to get inexecution proceeding an order for possession of the village. While dealing with the said case it was observed that the executing court had chalked out a means for identifying the same, though, the same has to be based on surmises. Their Lordship of the privy council had observed after working on the basis of the figures given that the appel lants were directed to get joint possession which they might get partitioned sub sequently. Therefore, such a proposition amounting to passing a fresh decree for joint possession which the executing court was not competent to pass. This decision to my mind, does not help to Mr. Gover, so far as the present case is concerned as would appear from the observations made hereinafter.

3. Mr. Grover next relies on the decision in the case of Shujaatnand Khan and others v. Govind Behari and others AIR 1934 All 100. The said case deals with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was held that an amendment allowing correc tion of the description of the property which completely alters the plaint and the decree and also the deed on which the plaint is passed, cannot be said to be a correction of clerical mi