Bombay High Court Allows Amendment in Execution Application to Correct Property Description. Executing Court Has Power to Allow Amendment Under Section 152 CPC to Align Execution with Decree.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 141
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, as legal representative of the original plaintiff, had obtained a decree in Regular Civil Suit No.12/1997 for recovery of possession of land admeasuring 63R out of S.No.16 at Purna, and a perpetual injunction against the Municipal Council, Purna. The decree attained finality. The petitioner filed Regular Darkhast No.2/2004 for execution. During execution, the petitioner filed an application at Exh.125 seeking amendment in the Darkhast to correct the description of the property to align with the decree. The executing court rejected the application. The High Court, in writ petition, considered whether the executing court can allow such amendment. The court noted that execution proceedings are a continuation of the suit and that the court has power under Section 152 CPC to correct mistakes. The court held that the amendment sought was to carry out the decree and not to alter it. The impugned order was set aside, and the amendment was allowed. The court directed the executing court to proceed with execution in accordance with law.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Amendment in Execution Application - Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner/decree holder sought amendment in Regular Darkhast No.02/2004 to correct the description of the suit property to match the decree. The executing court rejected the application. The High Court held that the executing court has power to allow amendment to carry out the decree and that execution proceedings are continuation of suit. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the executing court can allow an amendment in the execution application (Darkhast) to correct the description of the property to align with the decree?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The impugned order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Purna is set aside. The application at Exh.125 is allowed. The executing court is directed to proceed with execution in accordance with law.

Law Points

  • Executing court can allow amendment in execution application to correct description of property
  • Amendment under Section 152 CPC is permissible to carry out decree
  • Execution proceedings are continuation of suit
  • Court can correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments
  • decrees or orders at any time
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 9

Writ Petition No.2073 of 2013

2015-10-07

V. K. Jadhav, J.

Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar for petitioner, Mr. S.N. Rodge for respondent

Iqbal Hussain s/o Ali Hussain (deceased) through LRs Syed Ahmed Hussain and Syed Kamal Ahmed (deceased) through LR

Municipal Council, Purna

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging order of executing court rejecting application for amendment in execution proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought amendment in Regular Darkhast No.02/2004 to correct description of suit property.

Filing Reason

Executing court rejected application for amendment in execution application.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed suit for possession and injunction on 15.1.2003; decree attained finality; execution filed as Regular Darkhast No.2/2004.

Issues

Whether the executing court can allow amendment in execution application to correct property description to align with decree?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that amendment was necessary to carry out the decree and that execution proceedings are continuation of suit. Respondent opposed the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The executing court has power to allow amendment in execution application to correct description of property to align with the decree, as execution proceedings are continuation of suit and such amendment does not alter the decree but only carries it out.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner/original decree holder has filed an application at Exh.125 before the Executing court seeking amendment in Regular Darkhast No.02/2004. The trial court, by its judgment and order dated 15.1.2003, partly decreed the suit and thereby directed the Respondent/original defendant to hand over the possession of the land admeasuring 63R out of the land S.No.16 situated at Purna... During the course of the execution of the decree, the executing court was pleased to issue possession warrant.

Procedural History

Regular Civil Suit No.12/1997 (old R.C.S. No.234/1989) was decreed on 15.1.2003. Decree holder filed Regular Darkhast No.2/2004. During execution, decree holder filed application Exh.125 for amendment in Darkhast. Executing court rejected application on 31.07.2012. Decree holder filed Writ Petition No.2073 of 2013 in High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 152
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Partially Allows Teacher's Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Approval Under MEPS Act. Management Directed to Reinstate and Pay Salary Despite State's Refusal, as Court Treats Services as Regular and Permanent; State Not Liable ...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Trial Court's Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Property Suit — Valuation Based on Market Value Determines Forum. Suit for Declaration and Injunction Over Non-Agricultural Property Must Be Valued Under Section 6 of Bombay Court Fe...