IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.980 of 2008 SANWALIYA KUMAR SINHA Versus MOSMAT KRISHNA DEVI & ORS ----------- 2 11/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the impugned order submits that he does not intend to get anything more in the execution case, save and except, what has been given to him by the decree in question. He, therefore, submits that the approach of the court below in not allowing certain amendments in the petition for execution filed by the petitioner is apparently a jurisdictional error. This Court has looked into the impugned order as also the decree and it has found that some how a clever attempt was initially made by the petitioner to also clarify the measurement of the land which was not mentioned in the decree and/or amount of rent which was again not spelt out in the decree. When however this aspect was detected by the court below a prayer was made by the petitioner to delete those paragraphs which has been allowed by the impugned order after recording a note caution against the counsel for the petitioner. The Court below infact by the impugned order has merely rejected the second part of the prayer of the petitioner for including the expression “ WO ZAMIN “ after finding there was no mention about the same in the decree. In the opinion of this Court, the court below was 2 justified in looking into the decree which also stands affirmed by the appellate court, and has merged with the decree of the appellate court. It however appears that the expression “ZAMIN” (not “makan wo Zamin”) has already been there in the decree, the court below is thus required to reconsider this aspect once again to this extent only and pass an order if the petitioner prays for amendment to this effect. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar