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 O