IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.275 of 2011 Between: V. Veeresham ..... PETITIONER AND Gangula Balavardhan Reddy ..... RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.275 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10.07.2009, in E.A. No.7 of 2009 in E.P.No.3 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad, whereunder and whereby the said application filed by the petitioner herein/decree holder for amendment of the E.P. under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/decree holder. None appeared for the respondent/judgment debtor though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein/decree holder obtained a decree against the respondent/judgment debtor for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,04,720/-. The petitioner herein/decree holder filed E.P.No.3 of 2006 for recovery of a total amount of Rs.3,41,801/- which is inclusive of interest in a sum of Rs.2,31,326/- claimed at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.09.1993 to 22.02.2006. In fact, the E.P. was originally filed for the recovery of the amount of Rs.1,10,475/- meeting the claim of interest in a sum of Rs.2,31,326/-. The petitioner herein/decree holder, therefore, filed E.A.No.7 of 2009 for amendment of the E.P. by adding the claim of interest in a sum of Rs.2,31,326/-. The Execution Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the provisions of Order VI Rule 7 C.PC. are applicable only for amendment of the pleadings in the suit, but not in E.P. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/decree holder relied on a decision reported in BABU LAL VS. M/S. HAZARI LAL KISHORI LAL AND OTHERS[1], wherein it was held that it is, thus, clear that the legislature has given ample power to the Court to allow amendment of the plaint at any stage, including the execution proceedings. The above case is also related to amendment of a plaint, but while the E.P. was pending. In the present case, the petitioner was seeking amendment of the Execution Petition. The Proviso 2 Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. which is relied upon by the Execution Court states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case, the amendment of the plaint is not required and the decree was passed as prayed for in the plaint. It is only at the time of filing the E.P. that by inadvertence, the interest claimed could not be included in the E.P. amount. As seen from the copy of the decree, the petitioner herein/decree holder was held entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,04,720/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation besides suit costs of Rs.5,735/-. Thus, when the decree grants interest on the suit amount, the petitioner herein/decree holder is certainly entitled to recover the same. As the claim for interest granted in the decree was omitted in the E.P. on account of the mistake and inadvertence, the same can always be permitted to be amended in as much as the proposed amendment does not run contra to the decree and on the other hand, is in accordance with the decree. In the circumstances, it is considered that the petitioner herein/decree holder can be permitted to amend the E.P. by adding the claim for interest also which is already granted in the decree. The impugned order is held unsustainable and the same is, accordingly, set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J) Date: 11th March, 2011. KL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.275 of 2011 Date: 11th March, 2011 KL [1] 1982 (1) Supreme Court Cases 525