Execution courts must correct clerical errors in sale certificates to fulfill legal obligations under Section 152 CPC.

ORDER:

The decree holder/auction purchaser filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. assailing the order dated 23.08.2017 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Avanigadda in E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999.

2. Heard arguments of Sri P.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Decree holder is the revision petitioner. Judgment debtors are the respondents. O.S.No.107 of 1999 was tried and disposed of by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. In execution of the decree E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 was filed by the decree holder. The prayer was to attach the immovable properties of judgment debtors and put them to sale by way of public auction. Ac.1.63 cents of wet land in R.S.No.417/6 situate in Lakshmipuram Village of Challapalli Sub-

Registry belonged to J.Drs. was accordingly attached. They executed warrant of attachment containing the description of boundaries on four sides of the said land. In the auction held D.Hr. became the successful bidder and a sale certificate dated 02.07.2009 was grated to him. It is to be recorded here; the sale was held only for 0.63 cents of land. It seems the sale certificate mentioned the boundaries as that were mentioned in the warrant under which attachment was affected for Ac.1.63 cents of land. After issuance of sale certificate D.Hr. prayed for delivery of possession of the property. The Execution Court ordered for delivery. It was at that time in E.A.No.65 of 2010 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 it granted the services of Mandal Surveyor for earmarking boundaries of the property. When that was done it was realized that the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate do not match with the ground realities and therefore the warrant for delivery was returned unexecuted.

4. In the context of above undisputed facts, D.Hr. filed E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 praying for amendment of boundaries and he prayed this amendment to be done in his petition whereunder he sought delivery of possession and also in the sale certificate. Notice was ordered to J.Drs. who filed their counter stating that Court had no jurisdiction to grant such relief. After due enquiry by an order dated 23.08.2017 the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda dismissed the said petition. That forced the D.Hr. to move the present revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that having won the litigation and obtained a decree and having successfully got the property sold and having obtained a sale certificate, D.Hr. is still not in possession of the property he purchased and the J.Drs. are still holding possession of the property and thereby deprived the D.Hr. from enjoying the fruits of the decree. Learned counsel submits that clerical or arithmetical errors could always be corrected in terms of Section 152 C.P.C. and cited a ruling of a learned Judge of this Court in Mamidi Venkateswara Rao v. Bellapu Ranga Rao ¹ . It has to be recorded that the revision petitioner therein is Sri Mamidi Venkateswara Rao who is respondent No.1/J.Dr.No.1 in this revision also. The cited ruling pertains to another part of immovable property of the very same J.Dr. In the cited ruling application of Section 152 was upheld.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 though contended that the amendment sought could not be entertained by the Execution Court could not cite any principle or ruling to substantiate the contentions raised by J.Dr.No.1.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and the impugn