THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2994 of 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2024 passed in E.A.No.6 of 2023 in E.P.No.29 of 2014 in O.S.No.38 of 2007 by the Principal District Judge at Khammam.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The Suit vide O.S.No.38 of 2007 is filed for Specific Performance of Contract and the same was decreed on 26.08.2010. The Decree Holder/Plaintiff filed E.P.No.29 of 2014. E.A.No.6 of 2023 was filed by plaintiff to amend the Survey Number and extent of EP schedule property i.e., Survey number 381 instead of Sy.No.391/E/A and 391/A/A and the total extent of land as AC.1.31 guntas instead of Ac.0.23 guntas and Ac.1.15 guntas which is mentioned in the EP scheduled property i.e., the total land of aC.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.381 of Tanikella Revenue Village, Konijerala Mandal, Khammam District. The trial Court dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner/D.Hr/plaintiff preferred the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the errors or mistakes in not giving the correct survey numbers inadvertently and when the land is identifiable within the given boundaries resulting in mis-description of schedule, the Court has ample power to correct the mistakes in the judgment and decree at any point of time. The Court is having powers both under Sections 152 and 47 of CPC to correct the defect in description regarding immovable property and also relied upon the judgment passed in Pratibha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another, AIR 2003 SC 643, Niyamat Ali Molia Vs. Soinargon Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., and others, AIR 2008 SC 225 Peethani Suryanarayana and another Vs Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and Others, AIR 2009 SC 2141 and also in Kunju Kunju

Chandran Vs Veloutha Kunju Raghavan and another, AIR 2005 Kerala 317. He further stated that executing Court has ample posers under Section 47 CPC to correct the insufficient description of property in decree as well as in judgment and thus requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. It is stated that after getting the certified copy of the decree, plaintiff came to know that survey number was mentioned in the decree as Sy.No.391/E/A and 391/A/A instead of Sy.No.381. Plaintiff demanded the defendants for execution of the decree but they postponed the same on one or other pretext and also did not receive the remaining balance of amount as such plaintiff got issued legal notice on 29.06.2013 and the defendant managed the postal authorities and returned the same as unserved, as such he approached the Court for registration of the document in his favour. In the E.P Schedule Property, it was stated that agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.0.23 guntas in Sy.No.391/E/A and Ac.1.15 guntas in

Sy.No.391/A/A situated at Tanikella Village, Konijerala Mandal, Khammam District. Advocate Commissioner gave report on 10.02.2023 stating that the land in Sy.No.381 is Ac.1.31 guntas and also enclosed location sketch map. Advocate Commissioner in his report stated that the E.P Schedule property situated at Tanikella Village is in rectangular shape.

6. In a counter filed by J.Dr.No.3, it was stated that decree was passed basing on agreement of sale and Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant in the absence of the parties, but in the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it was mentioned that the counsel for D.Hr was present.

7. Notice sent to J.Dr.No.2 was returned as refused. Therefore, the contention of the J.Dr.No.3 in the counter that he was not present is not tenable. J.Drs further contended that instead of amending the plaint schedule property in the suit and without adjudicating the original suit basing on amendments, the decree itself is not tenable. There was amendment in the plaint and decree as per I.A.No.112 of 2012 dated 14.12.2012. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the trial Court is not on