CRP 470/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr T Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. For the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is considered inesse ntial to issue notice. The superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked to set at naught the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Title Execution Case No. 6/20 07 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Cod e of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Code’) and unde r Order 6 Rule 17 thereof for amendment of the plaint and the judgment and decre e in Title Suit No, 21/2001, since disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2005 by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi whereb y the petitioner’s (plaintiff) suit was decree on contest with a direction to th e respondent (defendant) to execute and register a sale deed in his favour in re spect of the suit land by accepting the contracted purchase money less the amoun t already paid. Shortly put, the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner (plaintiff) had instituted the aforementioned suit against the respondent (defendant) praying for a decree, inter alia, for specific perfor mance of contract as evidenced by the agreement of sale between the parties. Tho ugh the agreement encompassed the suit land along with the house and the trees t hereon, the petitioner (plaintiff) missed to mention about the house and the tre es in the plaint and limited his prayer for a decree, though based on the agreem ent, to the suit land. After a full dress contest the suit was decreed as above only in respect of the land and accordingly the decree was modelled on the judg ment so rendered. As no appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree so passed, th e petitioner (plaintiff) instituted Title Execution Case No. 6/2007. It was only after the respondent/ judgment debtor had pointed out that the decree was execu table only in respect of the suit land that the petitioner (plaintiff) filed an application for correction and amendment as above. The learned Trial Court by th e order impugned has rejected the said application of the petitioner (plaintiff) . Mr Islam has endeavoured to impress upon this Court that as the suit was founded on an agreement for sale which contemplated the suit land as well as th e house and the trees thereon and as the decree had been passed on the basis the reof, the learned Executing Court had erred in law and on facts in not permittin g the amendment as prayed for and in not effecting the consequential rectificati ons in the decree. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a considerati on of the materials on record, this Court is left unconvinced on the merit of th e submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. At the first place, as the Ex ecuting Court the prayers made could not have been entertained as the same if al lowed would have amounted to going behind the decree. This is more so as the err ors sought to be corrected do not touch the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Co urt deciding the suit. Apart therefrom, the petitioner (plaintiff) having omitte d to mention about the house and the trees in the plaint though included in the agreement and the learned Trial Court having adjudicated upon the issues between the parties on the basis of their pleadings, in the opinion of this Court, at t he stage of execution of the said decree the prayers made by the petitioner (pla intiff) were not entertainable in law. He is, however, at liberty to pursue his other remedies as available to him in law. In so far the instant petition is concerned, in the unhesitant opini on of this Court it lacks merit and/or substance and is accordingly dismissed. N o costs.