ORDER :

(C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The petitioners herein are the claim petitioners in Ext.P7 claim petition. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P12 order, which dismissed the application for amendment of the claim petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the amendment sought for vide Ext.P10 was dismissed only harping on the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, which will not apply to a claim petition filed under Order 21, Rule 99. Learned counsel would submit that Order 6, Rule 17 deals with amendment of ‘pleadings’ and pleadings are defined in Order 6, Rule 1 to mean plaint or written statement only. In the instant case, Ext.P7 is a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 99. Therefore, the same cannot be brought within the ambit of ‘pleadings’ as defined in Order 6, Rule 1. The second submission is based on the definition to Section 2(2) of the Code, wherein that part of the definition of the decree, which includes Section 47 , has been omitted by the Amendment Act of the year 1976, wherefore a proceeding under and an order passed therein, will not amount to a decree. In this regard, learned counsel would