IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 20.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI and CMP.No.30799 of 2025 Karuppusamy (Died)

Marappan @ Palanisamy (Died)

Palaniyammal ... Petitioners Vs.

1. Marimuthu

2. Ramathal ... Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 24.10.2025 made in E.A.No.53 of 2025 in E.P.No.34 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruppur. For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay N Gandhi For Respondents : Ms.C.P.Nivedha for Mr.Hari Prashanth

O R D E R

The judgment debtor challenges the order permitting amendment of the description of the decreetal property in the Execution Petition.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had earlier approached the Second Appellate Court, viz., this Court, seeking modification of the description of the property from Survey No.835 to Survey No.845. According to the learned counsel, as borne out by the records, even at the time when such modification was sought in the year 2018, Survey No.845 had already been sub-divided and assigned.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further invite the attention of this Court to the application filed in E.A.No.1196 of 2023, wherein the respondents/decree holders sought amendment of the old Survey Number as S.F.No.442/17. Upon a counter-affidavit having been filed objecting to such amendment, the respondents/decree holders withdrew the said application. He would therefore contend that the respondents are conscious of the fact that the property described in the Execution Petition as Survey No.845 is different from the subdivided Survey Nos.845/12 and 845/13. On the said grounds, he prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the order of the Executing Court permitting amendment.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders would submit that even in the Commissioner’s Report, the learned Advocate Commissioner has found that the revision petitioners are in possession of Survey Nos.845/12 and 845/13, after comparing the registered sale deeds and other documents. The learned counsel would further submit that there is sufficient discussion in the judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal with regard to the survey numbers, as well as the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, wherein it is stated that the present survey number is Survey No.845. The learned counsel would further contend that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by permitting the amendment, as it merely specifies the sub-division of the parent Survey No.845, particularly in light of the reports of the Advocate Commissioner and the Bailiff, which clearly identify the property in the possession of the petitioners. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

6.This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on either side.

7.In the judgment rendered in S.A.No.813 of 1998 dated

13.12.2018, this Court has recorded a finding that though the original survey number was S.No.442, the present survey number is S.No.845. Pursuant thereto, amendment was permitted to incorporate Survey No.845 in the decree. It is based on the said amended decree that the Execution Petition has been filed.

8.It is true that the respondents had earlier attempted to amend the decreetal survey number as S.No.442/17 instead of S.No.442 in the year 2023. The said application came to be withdrawn in view of the objections raised by the petitioner through a detailed counter-affidavit. However, this Court does not find that such withdrawal would preclude the respondents from seeking amendment to include the sub-division of Survey No.845, in order to give better clarity to the identity of the property sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

9.The specific contention of the petit