IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 5.3.2007

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN

C.R.P.[NPD] No.835/2003

1.A.Arthaneri

2.A.Srinivasan

..Petitioners[Respondents/

Respondents].

vs.

1.S.Seshagiri rao

2.S.Gnanasekaran

3.S.Sairam

4.Lakshmi

5.Dhanapal

.. Respondents[Petitioners 2 to 4

Respondent 5/Petitioners, Decree Holder]

Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC against the order dated

11.6.2003 made in R.E.A.No.38/2003 in R.E.P.No.107/1995 in O.S.No.178/1977

on the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri.

For Petitioners

: Mr.P.Jagadesan

For Respondents 1 to 3

: Mr.T.R.Rajaraman

Respondent 4 and 5

: Given up.

ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

11.6.2003 in R.E.A.No.38/2003 in R.E.P.No.107/1995 in O.S.No.178/1977 on

the file of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri.

2.The obstructors in R.E.A No.38/2003 in R.E.P.No.107/1995 are the

revision petitioners before this court. They are aggrieved by the order

of the execution court dated 11.6.2003 by which the execution court

permitted the decree holders to amend the execution petition by amending

the survey number in the description of the property as Survey No.253/2B1-

A2 instead of Survey No.253/2B1-B2 as inadvertently typed in the execution

petition. The executing court allowed the same. Hence the revision

petition by the obstructors for the aforesaid relief.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the

learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents

filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their

submissions.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that as

per the decree of the first appellate court, the Survey Number of the suit

schedule property is S.No.253/2B1-B2 and therefore the very same number

was given in the execution petition also. In such circumstances,

according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners unless the

Survey Number in the decree is amended, the Survey Number in the execution

petition cannot be amended.

5.Per contra the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a

mere typographical error of this nature would have to be corrected and no

prejudice would be caused to any parties as excepting the Survey Number,

no other details need to be amended and the property is identifiable by

all the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the

decisions of this court reported in 1974 TNLJ 463 (Hamid Bi vs. Udayyan)

and 1997(1) CTC 584 (Chinna Marudachalam v. Chinnaiya Gounder) in support

of his contentions.

6.I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to

facts and citations.

7.It is the case of the decree holders that the suit filed in

O.S.No.178/1977 was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by

them in A.S.No.58/1979 was allowed by the 1^st appellate court. The Second

Appeal against the judgment of the first appeal was dismissed by the High

court. In R.E.P.No.107/1995, delivery was ordered by the execution court

but the delivery was obstructed by the obstructors. So proceedings were

initiated for removal of obstructions and pending those proceedings, it

was found that the Survey Number in the description of the property in the

execution petition was inadvertently given as S.No.253/2B1-B2 instead of

S.No.253/2B1/A2. The execution court after noting that as per trial court

decree the suit property is described as S.No.253/2B1-A2 held that a

mistake has been crept in in the appellate court decree wherein the suit

property is described as S.No.253/2B1-B2 instead of 253/2B1-A2 and

therefore allowed the petition, filed by the decree holders.

8.I am of the considered view that the trial court has committed an

error in permitting the decree holder to amend the execution petition when

the decree of the 1^st appellate court is not at all