The court affirmed the right to amend execution petitions to rectify inadvertent mistakes, prioritizing justice over technical procedural objections.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are respondents 1 to 5 in the execution petition filed by the 1^st respondent herein as decree holder on the basis of a money decree obtained as in O.S. No. 37 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Sultanbathery.

2. First respondent filed Ext.P2 execution petition as E.P No. 40 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Sultanbathery for the enforcement of the decree debt, to which Ext.P3 objection was filed by the petitioners. After about two years of filing the execution petition, the 1st respondent filed an application as Ext.P4, seeking amendment of the execution petition by incorporating decree details and amount due under various heads, to which Ext.P5 objection was filed by the petitioners. The Execution Court allowed the said application as per Ext.P6 order, which is challenged in this original petition.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no bonafides in filing Ext.P4 application for amendment of the execution petition and that the said application is not maintainable under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is also contended that the 1st respondent could file a fresh execution petition after rectifying the mistakes and filing a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not the proper procedure. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment inMuthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance (P) Ltd., Meppayur v. Samuel K and another, 2018 KHC 296 in support of their contention that an Execution Petition cannot be amended invoking the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent bank would submit that by an inadvertent mistake, some omissions happened in entering details in Columns 9 and 10 of the Execution Petition. The amounts shown in Column 9 was a mistake and Column 10 was kept totally blank and without rectifying the mistakes, the Execution Petition cannot be proceeded with. The Execution Petition was filed on 21.07.2022 and filing of a fresh Execution Petition would cause much delay in disposing of the matter. Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the judgment in Ravindran and Others v. Dandayudhan and Others , AIR 1988 Ker 32 in support of his contention.

5. I have considered the rival contentions on both sides.

6. Admittedly, this is a case where some omissions happened in entering details in Column 9 of the Execution Petition and due to the same there is a mistake in the amounts shown in Column 9 and Column 10 was kept totally blank. It is to rectify the same, that the amendment was sought for. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance’ case cited supra to contend that amendment of the execution petition cannot be permitted as per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. After going through the said judgment, I am of the view that the same was passed in a totally different situation and cannot apply to the facts of the present case. That was a case where there has been substantial misdescription of the property in the Execution Petition as well as in the Execution Application and the same were sought to be corrected by an application for amendment and what was sought to be amended was the schedule of the Execution Application for delivery and the auction certificate. This Court held in that case that such amendment cannot be permitted after the auction was conducted holding that if the details of the properties were shown correctly, other interested bidders would have taken due interest in participating in the sale proceedings and it is for the said reason that there were no other bidders except the petitioner, decree holder. It was also held that if the amendment is allowed in th