THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3330 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard, Mr.R.Laxmi Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in E.A. No.121 of 2025 in E.P. No.44 of 2016 in O.S.

No.129 of 2001 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

3. The revision petitioners are Judgment Debtors Nos.1 and 2. The brief facts relevant for adjudication are that respondent No.1/Decree Holder filed O.S. No.129 of 2001 seeking recovery of amounts allegedly received by the defendants therein as prize money. The suit was decreed on 19.01.2004, and for execution of the said decree, the Decree Holder instituted E.P. No.44 of 2016 seeking attachment of certain movable properties belonging to Judgment Debtors Nos.1 and 2. During pendency of the said Execution Petition, the Decree Holder filed E.A. No.121 of 2025 seeking amendment of pleadings in the execution proceedings, which came to be allowed by the impugned order now under challenge.

4.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/Judgment Debtors Nos.1 and 2 contends that the petition filed by the Decree Holder for amendment of the pleadings in the execution proceedings is improper and legally unsustainable. It is submitted that permitting such amendment at a highly belated stage causes serious prejudice to the petitioners, especially when the execution proceedings are time-bound and relate to long-pending matters.

4.2. Counsel further submits that the prayer for attachment of additional properties at the stage of execution lacks any statutory basis under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), and that the trial Court has failed to properly consider the earlier pleadings and representations filed by the petitioners. It is also argued that in the earlier reply to a petition filed by Judgment Debtor No.3, the Decree Holder had specifically asserted that all properties shown in the schedule are of the Judgment Debtors in the Execution petition. Therefore, filing a subsequent application seeking amendment to add or modify property particulars of the Judgment debtor amounts to misrepresentation and abuse of process of court. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside as being arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law.

5.1. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Decree Holder submits that the Execution Petition has been pending since 2016, and the properties sought to be attached were duly shown in the schedule to the petition. However, upon verification, it was realized that the address of Judgment Debtor No.2 was inadvertently mentioned incorrectly due to a typographical error. Therefore, the amendment application was filed to rectify the said clerical mistake.

5.2. It is contended that the learned executing Court rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the amendment, as the proposed correction neither alters the nature of the Execution Petition nor causes prejudice to the Judgment Debtors. Learned counsel submits that typographical errors are curable defects, and procedural amendments to rectify them fall within the ambit of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, read with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 CPC. The order of the trial Court, it is argued, was passed after due consideration and calls for no interference.

6. I have perused the material on record and considered the rival submissions advanced.

7. The amendment application in E.A. No.121 of 2025 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to amend the Execution Petition. Although Order VI Rule 17 CPC primarily applies to pleadings in civil suits, it is well settled that the principles underlying this provision can also be invoked in execution proceedings, provided the amendment does not alter the fundamental nature of the execution or introduce a new cause of act