The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for records in the case on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and peruse the same and set aside/quash the order dated 21.11.2019 passed on the application in the case on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC. The Court observed that no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner decree holder.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner decree holder in the Execution petition on the file of Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC is before this Court aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to the draft sale deed. Petitioner decree holder filed O.S.No.13 for specific performance of contract and the said suit came to be decreed under judgment and decree dated 16.12.2017. The said decree was confirmed by this Court in the Regular Second Appeal. To execute the above-stated decree, the petitioner herein filed Execution on the file of Senior Civil Judge. The Executing Court ordered for the execution of the sale deed through the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner returned the said draft sale deed. Based on the said information, the petitioner decree holder filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the judgment debtors during the pendency of the suit in violation of the injunction order transferred the property so as to defeat the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff/decree holder. The counsel argued that if the amendment sought is not allowed, the plaintiff/petitioner herein would not be in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the present amendment only to the draft sale deed would not be maintainable unless the suit schedule as well as decree schedule is amended. He argued that the amendment sought would entirely change the suit schedule property itself and in the present execution proceedings, such amendment is not permissible, unless an inquiry is conducted. In that regard, without providing opportunity to the person in whose name the entire property stands on this day, the amendment cannot be allowed. Further, the learned counsel contended that the amendment is not only with regard to survey number, but it is with regard to extent as well as the name.
The Court observed that no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner decree holder. Unless the petitioner decree holder amends the plaint schedule as well as the decree schedule, mere amendment to the draft sale deed would not be permissible. The Executing Court is required to execute the decree as it is and the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The observations made by the Executing Court in that regard are correct and need no interference. Moreover, the Court said, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC would not be applicable to amend the draft sale deed as prayed in the application.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, disposing of the petition, held that it is open for the petitioner to avail any other appropriate remedy available under law.
Case Title: Smt. Jayanthi @ Rangamma v Smt. Puttamma & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Krishna S Dixit
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 13998 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Manjunath Prasad H. N.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Belavangala Basavaraju
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
