HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5126 OF 2010 Dated 4th August, 2011 Between: Sulluru Devarajulu. ….Petitioner. And: Bathala Hymavathi. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5126 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 9th July, 2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in E.A.No.513 of 2009 in E.P.No.88 of 2004 in O.S.No.158 of 1999. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant seeking for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed on 11.2.2002. After passing the decree, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.88 of 2004 in O.S.No.158 of 1999 seeking attachment of the scheduled mentioned property by issuing attachment under Order-XXI Rule 54 C.P.C. In this connection, the attachment was ordered on 3.7.2004 and the same was effected on 3.8.2004. At this stage, the plaintiff filed an application in E.A.No.513 of 2009 in E.P.No.88 of 2004 in O.S.No.158 of 1999 seeking to permit her to amend the E.P.schedule as shown in the petition on the ground that by mistake the correct extents of the property were not mentioned in the E.P.schedule and the defendant filed counter giving the correct details of the schedule property and hence, she may be permitted to amend the E.P. schedule as mentioned in the petition, otherwise she will be put to hardship. The Court below having observed that if the amendment is not allowed, the plaintiff will be put to heavy loss and she cannot reap the fruits of the decree, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) to the defendant on or before 16.7.2010, failing which the petition stands dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the defendant. On 19.11.2010, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings. Subsequently, at request, the matter underwent several adjournments. Heard the learned counsel. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the Court below erred in allowing the petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the E.P. Schedule even though the provisions of order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. have no application in the E.P. proceedings. It is further contended that the Court below ought to have seen that by virtue of amendment of E.P. schedule, the very process of attachment would vitiate and apart from that there is no provision whatsoever contemplated in the code of Civil Procedure or any procedural law permitting the relief of amendment of the E.P. schedule. It is his further contention that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below that there is no change of boundaries and extent of site and door number, is not justifiable and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by allowing this revision. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is just and proper and as such, the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, this revision is liable to be dismissed. Apart from that, in support of his contention that mere mentioning of incorrect extents of the property due to inadvertence in the E.P.schedule cannot make the proceedings void and apart from that, the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. can be invoked only on the ground that there is gross misuse of the powers of the court by the parties or when the court wants to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Decree holder relied upon a decision of this court reported in SYED MUBARAK (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. SYED DILAWAR AND OTHERS ([1]) wherein, it was held thus: “Therefore, keeping all these facts in view, I am of the opinion that mere wrong mentioning of the name in the present case cannot make the entire proceedings void. When the general power- of-attorney was executing the decree, he was under the impression that he was doing the same on behalf of legal representatives and taken possession on their behalf only. The lower court merely proceeded on the ground that a dead person’s name appeared in the cause title and therefore, possession should be restored to the judgment-debtors. There is nothing like abuse of the process of the court in the present case in giving delivery to the rightful persons. The provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. can be invoked only when there is gross misuse of the powers of the court or when the court wants to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.” In support of his further contention that for amendment of the plaint and the consequential amendment of the decree may be treated as an application made in the original suit proceedings, he relied upon a decision of the apex court reported in TIKO (SMT) AND OTHERS Vs.LACHMAN ([2]), wherein it was held thus: “Technically speaking the executing court could not go beyond the decree and hence the order passed by it is not assailable. But the executing court was also the court which could have amended the plaint and the decree.” “It was therefore, open to that court to treat the application as an application made before the decretal court and proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.” In support of this contention that the Courts will be generous in allowing the parties to carry out the amendments, he also relied upon the decision of the apex court reported in B.K.NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI AND ANOTHER ([3]), wherein it was held thus: “The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event.” In support of his contention that the purpose of seeking amendment is only to adjudicate the issue involved between both the parties affectively and it will not cause prejudice to the other side and therefore, the Court below is justified in permitting the plaintiff-Decree holder to amend the schedule in question, he also relied upon a decision of the apex Court reported in RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS Vs. K.K.MODI AND OTHERS ([4]) wherein it was held thus: “The amendment sought was necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties as the beneficiaries of the Trust.” I have perused the material available on record and the order impugned in particular. There is no dispute as to the boundaries, door number and extent and other features. But, the fact remains that the plaintiff seeks permission to amend only the measurements of the building and the site. It is pertinent to note that the suit in question is of the year 1999. A perusal of record goes to show that the alleged amendment is confined only to the extent of measurements of the building and site in question as under: “37 Ankanams of terraced building” and to incorporate the words “consisting of 35 Ankanams of RCC building in the ground floor and 35 Ankanams of RCC building in the first floor in an extent of 37 Ankanams of site”. It further goes to show that the defendant raised the objection that the schedule in the E.P. is not correctly mentioned and apart from that, the E.P. schedule property fetches more value by 1000 times and therefore, the value assessed by the Court Amin, needs interference. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that the amendment is confined to only with regard to the measurements of the property in question. It should not also be lost sight of the fact that if the amendment is with regard to the change of boundaries, it would naturally change the entire nature of the property and in those circumstances, it would not be advisable to allow the amendment. But, in the instant case, the amendment is only with regard to mentioning of the correct extents of the property in question and if the plaintiff is not permitted to amend the schedule property, she may not be able to execute the decree passed in her favour and ultimately, the very purpose of obtaining the decree will be defeated and therefore, in these circumstances coupled with the principles laid down in the above citations, there is no other go except to hold that the Court below is justified in allowing the plaintiff to amend the schedule property. Therefore, the order under revision does not call for any interference by this Court and hence, this revision is liable to be dismissed confirming the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 4th August, 2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5126 OF 2010 Dated 4th August, 2011 [1] ALT 1978 (2) 515 [2] 1995 Supp (4) SCC 582 [3] (2000) 1 SCC 712 [4] 2006 (3) ALD 61 (SC)