ORDER

This petition by the judgment debtor No.1 in Ex.No.1742/2007 is directed against the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by the respondents 1 to 5 – decree holders under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the schedule to the execution petition was allowed by the Executing Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 – decree holders are the legal representatives of one Hanumathappa, who instituted a suit in O.S.No.51/1983 against the petitioner – defendant No.1 and others for declaration, mandatory injunction, possession, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property by describing the same as vacant building site bearing Corporation No.14 and 9 and present No.10 situated in Anjaneya Temple Street, 6th Cross, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 052, measuring East to West – 50 feet and North to South – 20 Feet as per the boundaries described in the schedule to the plaint. The said suit having been contested by the petitioner and other defendants, the Trial Court passed a judgment and decree dated 26.08.2000, which was confirmed by this court in RFA No.990/2000 dated 25.06.2007 as well as by the Apex court in SLP No.18359/2007 dated 08.10.2007. The said judgment and decree was put into execution by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 – decree holders in the instant execution proceedings, which are being contested by the petitioner – judgment debtor No.1.

4. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the decree holders noticed that while the judgments and decrees passed in their favour described the suit schedule property as No.14 and 9 and present No.10, the execution petition described the suit schedule property only as No.14 and present No.10 by omitting to insert the word ‘No.9’ in the schedule to the execution petition. Under these circumstances, the decree holders filed the instant application seeking amendment of the schedule to the execution petition by inserting / incorporating the said ‘No.9’ to the schedule to the petition. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the executing Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. A perusal of the entire material on record including the rival contentions will indicate that Executing Court has come to the correct conclusion that the omission of the words ‘No.9’ in the schedule to the execution petition despite the said words being part and parcel of the decree passed in favour of the decree holders was a clerical / typographical error / mistake that had occurred due to oversight and inadvertence capable and permissible to be amended so as to bring the same in conformity with the judgment and decree and essential for adjudication of the execution proceedings especially when the proposed amendment cannot be said to change or alter the nature or character of the execution proceedings nor cause any prejudice to the petitioner – judgment debtor No.1, who would be entitled to file additional statement of objections to the amended execution petition and contest the same in accordance with law. The Executing Court also did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the proposed amendment was barred by limitation since the decree holders did not chose to add any additional schedule property to the execution petition as incorrectly contended by the petitioner and consequently, the proposed amendment deserved to be allowed and merely latches and delay could not be made the basis to allow the amendment application. While arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the executing Court held as under:

“Present I.A. came to be filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC sough