IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.499 of 2006 SHIV SHANKAR SINGH & ANR Versus DR. RATAN CHANDRA PATEL & ORS ----------- 4 15.10.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties despite service of notices effected on them. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order refusing to ammend the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 99 cannot be sustained because what was being sought to be supplied by way of amendment was only the date of dispossession i.e. 7.11.2005. The basis of said date being only clarificatory or at best explanatory in nature, the same could not have been refused. The technicalities as has been sought to be highlighted in the impugned order should have been better avoided by the Court below inasmuch as an application under Order XXI Rule 99 C.P.C. itself envisages an opportunity to a person other than a judgment debtor, to raise a complaint before the Executing Court in the event of his dispossession by a decree holder. That being so, the date of dispossession of the petitioner was only a consequential addition in the said application filed by the petitioner which was fit to be incorporated and could not have been refused. Thus for the reasons mentioned above this Court would set aside the impugned order and the court below is directed to allow the amendment as prayed for by the petitioner in his application dated 19.11.2005 and proceed to decide the main issue in the application filed by the petitioner strictly in terms of order XXI Rule-99 C.P.C. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)