THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 894 of 2010 Oral order: The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor who suffered a money decree dated 8-10-1999 in O.S.No. 93 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. The respondent-decree holder filed E.P.No. 49 of 2007 for realization of the decretal amount and in the cause title thereof, instead of setting out the plaintiff and decree holder as Sri Devi Pulvarisers represented by its Managing Partner Desu Veera Prakasarao described the Execution petitioner as Desu Veera Prakasarao simplicitor. By way of E.A.No. 257 of 2009 the decree holder sought amendment of the cause title in the E.P. to reflect the name of the Execution petitioner as in the decree. By the order impugned in this revision dated 15-12-2009 the Court below allowed E.A.No. 257 of 2009 and permitted the respondent-decree holder to amend the cause title in the E.P. clearly recording that no prejudice is caused to the revision petitioner by grant of relief to the respondent herein. It is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in view of the judgment of this Court in Mudlapati Peda Venkaiah v. Kotha Guravaiah[1] the provisions of Order VI Rules 1 and 17 of the C.P.C. do not apply to amendment of pleadings in the E.P. It requires to be noticed that Section 151 of the C.P.C. consecrates an inherent power in the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. No doubt this power is not to be invoked where specific provisions exist in respect of particular process. In the case on hand, the singular contention on behalf of the revision petitioner is that the application made by and on behalf of the respondent for amendment of the cause title in the E.P. being under Order VI, the application was misconceived and thus the order impugned herein as well. As the Court below had an ample and plenitudinous reservoir of power under Section 151 to prevent miscarriage of justice, even if the provisions of Order VI are inapplicable to an application as in the nature of E.A.No. 257 of 2009, this Court is satisfied that no error in the application of law; perversity in the exercise of discretion or miscarriage of justice has occurred, warranting revisional interference. It is axiomatic that mere citation of a wrong provision does not vitiate the order of a competent public authority, if the exercise of power can be traced to any extant provision of law. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 19th March, 2010. GRR [1] 2000(3) ALT 431,