1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4218 OF 2011 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.06.2011. 1. Heard Mr.Kutti, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The suit filed by the present Respondents for specific performance of contract is decreed. Pursuant to the decree for specific performance, the present Respondents filed execution petition. During pendency of the same, initially an application Exh.67 was moved for amendment in the draft sale deed. The said application was withdrawn. Thereafter, the decree holder moved amendment application Exh.95 for amendment in the Darkhast proceedings, thereby amending the 2 Gat number as 164/2B/2/1/1. Similar application was made vide Exh.128 for amendment in prayer clause of the execution petition. The Executing Court allowed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the judgment debtor has filed the present petition. Mr.Kutti, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Executing Court could not have gone behind the decree. The decree has to be executed strictly in terms of the decree that has been passed. The suit of the decree holder was decreed and the Court directed the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed in respect of northern 1 hectare 5 ares portion from land Gat No.164/2B/2. As such unless and until the decree is amended, no amendment can be allowed in the executing proceedings. The amendment that can be allowed can only be arithmetical mistakes or corrections of mistakes of its ministerial actions. For the said purpose, learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Sarup Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another" reported in 2010 (13) JT 69. 3. The learned counsel further contends that 3 in view of provisions of Order XXI Rule 34 of the C.P.C., the petitioner could have moved the application once only. This aspect has not been considered. It is further contended that once the earlier application was withdrawn. The subsequent applications were not tenable. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the order impugned. It is not disputed that the decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the decree holder was for specific performance in respect of northern 1 hectare 5 ares portion of land Gat No.164/2B/2 is confirmed upto this Court. The Executing Court has discussed how the suit land has been renumbered as G.No.164/2B/2/1/1. In light of the fact that the Executing Court has come to the categorical conclusion that the said gat number has been renumbered, whereas the location/situation of the property remains the same i.e. northern portion of the land. It can be held that the same is the suit land. Moreover, factually also it does not appear that the J.D. has seriously disputed the same. The Executing 4 Court has discussed how this is the only land remained with the J.D. and that too in northern portion of the said gat number. 5. The contention that the Executing Court could not have travelled beyond the decree need not be dilated. The same is the trite law but by allowing amendment of the present nature, it can not be said that the Executing Court has travelled beyond the decree that has been passed by the Court. Order XXI Rule 34 of the C.P.C. also does not lay down that the jurisdiction of the Court is restricted to entertain only one application. Such a narrow interpretation can not be had to the said provision nor the phraseology of the said provision permits such an interpretation. 6. The judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Sarup Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another" referred supra is not stricto- senso applicable in the present case inasmuch as the same was dealing with the amendment in the decree. The amendment in the decree is not sought but in an execution petition the gat 5 number as it stood in the suit is being sought to be renumbered due to its change in the said gat number. It can not be said that the decree is being amended. The Executing Court has to execute the decree in its letter and spirit and the decree can not be allowed to be frustrated on such grounds. 7. In the result, the impugned orders can not be faulted. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.16.06.2011. asp/office/wp4218.11 6