This is a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 5-10-2018 passed by learned II Additional District Judge, Satna whereby an application filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor for amendment has been rejected.

2. The factual expose, adumbrated in a nutshell, is that the respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for declaration of title over Khasra No.599/675/1(a), area 0.50 hectare situated at Sindhi Camp, Satna and for recovery of the possession. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 30-7-2011.

3. In the execution proceedings, the judgment-debtor filed an application for amendment stating that in the description of the land in para 9 of his application at 25th line be allowed to add 1 in the description Kh.No.599/675/1(a).

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has erred while rejecting his application which is contrary to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code [for short ‘the CPC’]. It is useful to refer the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC which are reproduced hereunder:

“97. Resistance or obstruction to posse