Court emphasized that amendments to execution petitions for clarity do not alter property identity and are permissible.

ORDER

This revision petition has been filed to to set aside the order in R.E.A.No.5 of

2019 in R.E.P.No.05 of 2019 arising out of O.S.No.893 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambur.

2.The decree holder is the revision petitioner.

3.I have heard Mr.R.Subramaniam, for Mr.Balasubramanian Ravi Iyer, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Despite service of notice, the respondents have neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel and hence, the respondents are called and set ex-parte.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner had filed an execution petition for delivery of the schedule mentioned property, in terms of the decree passed in O.S.No.893 of 1996. He would further state that the decree was challenged not only in first appeal, but also by way of second appeal before this Court and it has attained finality. As the respondents did not come forward to deliver possession, the petitioner was constrained to move an execution petition. The 8^th respondent in R.E.P.No.5 of 2019 filed an additional counter in the execution petition, stating that the schedule property has to be amended, as it does not reflect the boundaries and survey numbers.

5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further state that the suit property described in the plaint and the EP are not one and the same and in order to address the technical objection, that is now raised by the judgment debtor (8^th respondent), the petitioner took out the application to amend the schedule to incorporate the boundaries. He would also state that when the execution petition was filed, item 2 of the property was only a tiled house in a dilapidated condition and subsequently, the superstructure has given way and it is now a vacant site. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the application for amendment of the execution petition was very well in order.

6.However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the executing Court has dismissed the application, on the ground that the amendment would cause serious prejudice to the judgment debtors and the Court, being an executing Court, cannot go beyond the decree, dismissed the application. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would rely on the decision of this Court in Sree Sankara Rameshwarar Devasthanam Vs. Pitchaiammal and others, reported in 1999 SCC Online Mad 384 and S.F.Abdul Jaleel Vs. V.M.Abdul Majid Rowther Trust and others, reported in 2002 (2) CTC 129. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the impugned order, dismissing the application for amendment.

8.It is the case of the decree holder/revision petitioner that the application for amendment was necessitated only on account of the technical objection taken by one of the judgment debtors, namely the 8^th respondent and even with regard to the non mentioning of the tiled house situate in item 2, it is stated that though the tiled house was in existence at the time of filing of the EP, and subsequently, owing to its dilapidated condition, it has fallen down and now it is a vacant site. For this reason, the petitioner sought to amend the schedule in the execution petition by removing “tiled house” in item 2 and also by incorporating boundaries to enable the bailiff to properly identify the decreetal property.

9.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the amendments do not affect the decreetal property in any manner. It is only for the p