IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15449 of 2009(O) --------------------------------------- IA.NO.594/2007 IN O.S. NO. 83/2001 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C. ABDUL KAREEM, CHOORAKKUNNU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, NO OCCUPATION, PANNANILATH HOUSE, ARYAPPARAMBA, KARAKKUNNU AMSOM, AMIYOOR DESOM, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P. JAMEELA, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. ABDULKAREEM,PANNANILATH HOUSE, ARYAPPARAMBA, KARAKKUNNU AMSOM, AMIYOOR DESOM, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID, MR.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER, MR.T.P.SAJID, SMT.M.A.SULFIA, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. FEDERAL BANK, ARYAKKODU BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, ARYAKKODU AMSOM, DESOM, ERANADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. EDAVANNA KALLUNGAL MUHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALIKURIKKAL, THIRUVALI AMSOM, PUNNAPPALA DESOM, POST NILAMBUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.15449 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “i) to quash the order in I.A.No.594/2007 in E.P.No.65/2005. ii) To stay the sale of the property in execution till disposal of the writ petition.” 2. Petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.65/05 in O.S.No.83/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Manjeri. When execution of the decree was proceeded by the respondent bank noticing that there was a discrepancy in the boundary of the mortgaged property shown in the decree schedule, an application was moved on the trial side to correct that mistake. Serious objections were raised by the present petitioners contending that such correction is impermissible under law. Learned Sub Judge after examining the merit of the correction sought for and also the principles governing Section 152 CPC in entertaining such petition for correction overruling the objections raised by the petitioners allowed that petition. Propriety and correctness of W.P.(C).No.15449 of 2009 - O 2 that order, a copy of which is produced as Ext.p1, is challenged in this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing Ext.P1 order which is impeached in the petition, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned sub Judge allowing the correction of the decree schedule property in tune with the mortgaged property, the deed of which was produced and exhibited as A4 in the suit. The discrepancy related to two boundaries which were interchanged, probably, by mistake when the schedule was incorporated in the plaint. It was a curable mistake and that was allowed to be rectified by the learned Sub Judge under Section 152 CPC. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-