THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 3823 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 24th July, 2009 passed in E.A.No.69 of 2009 in EP No.121 of 2006 in O.S.No.426 of 1987 by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Revision petitioner herein is the defendant-judgment debtor. Respondents herein are the plaintiffs-decree holders. Plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.426 of 1987 seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises and the same was decreed. Challenging the same, the defendant filed Appeal in CCCA No.46 of 2006 which was dismissed by this Court. Thereupon, the plaintiffs filed the execution petition and delivery warrant was issued and the bailiff returned the warrant un-executed. Subsequently, the judgment debtor disputed the identity of the schedule property in question and an advocate-commissioner was appointed and report was submitted wherein it was noticed that there is a mistake in respect of door number and the boundaries in the plaint and decree. Hence, the plaintiffs filed CCAMP No.391 of 2007 and CCCAMP No.440 of 2008 in CCCA No.46 of 1996 before this Court seeking amendment of the premises in the plaint and boundaries and the same were allowed by this Court. In pursuance thereof, the plaintiffs filed the present petition to amend the plaint, decree and EP Schedule. The learned Judge allowed the petition in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the said CCCAMPs. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the defendant-judgment debtor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Executing Court has no power to amend the plaint and therefore, the order of the Court below in dealing with plaint cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the said contention by contending that vide orders dated 6.3.2009 passed in CCCAMP No.391 of 2007 and 440 of 2008 in CCCA No.46 of 1996, this Court allowed the petitions which were filed for amendment of the premises in the plaint and boundaries. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the respondents are trying to execute the EP on the basis of the un- amended schedule, which the Court below has not allowed. I see no force in the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as this Court had allowed the petitions vide orders dated 6.3.2009 passed in CCCAMP No.391 of 2007 and 440 of 2008 in CCCA No.46 of 1996. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would suffice if liberty is given to the respondents to file a fresh EP on the basis of the amended decree. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. ____________ 10-09-2009 kvrk/rkk THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 3823 OF 2009 10th September 2009