Dismissed

Parthiban v. K.Balan

Madras HC16 Dec 2019CRP/4097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the order dismissing an application to amend the property schedule in an execution petition. The High Court upheld the trial court's view that the remedy for discrepancies in property description lies in amending the plaint before the trial court, not the execution decree.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed and the order and decree of the Court below are confirmed, directing the petitioner to approach the Trial Court for amendment.

Parthiban Vs K.Balan — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.12.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

C.R.P.No.4097 of 2019

¶6

J.Parthiban .. Petitioner/Petitioner/ Petitioner(Decree Holder)/Plaintiff

¶7

Vs.

¶8

K.Balan 2.K.Perumal .. Respondents/Respondents/ Respondents(Judgment Debtor)/Defendants

¶9

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair order and decree dated 11.10.2018, made in E.A.No.13 of 2016 in E.P.No.17 of 2014 in O.S.No.63 of 2012, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.Ravindran

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Present revision has been filed against the order seeking to amend the description of the property before the Execution Court.

¶14

The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2012, for specific performance and the suit has been decreed ex parte. Thereafter, he filed an execution petition for execution of the sale deed under Order XXI Rule 34 of C.P.C. Pending E.P., as the description of the property has not been correctly given in the plaint schedule, the petitioner filed E.A.No.13 of 2016 before the Execution Court. The Execution Court dismissed the said application stating that at the execution stage, plea for an amendment to the boundaries as described in the original plaint cannot be entertained without seeking for amendment in the plaint and decree. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the records carefully.

¶16

In the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 34 of CPC, the petitioner has filed an application under

¶17

Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the schedule of property in the Execution Petition. According to the petitioner, description of the property has not been correctly given in the plaint and therefore, he wants to correct the same. If there is any discrepancy in the description of the suit property the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the trial Court to get it rectified in the plaint and filing a petition in the Execution Court to amend the schedule of property in the decree is not maintainable. The trial Court considering all these aspects dismissed the said application and directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Trial Court to get it amended. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the same as the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. There is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the order and decreetal order of the Court below, impugned in this revision petition, are hereby confirmed. However, it is open to the petitioner to take necessary application seeking for amendment before the Trial Court, if so advised. No costs.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

¶22

To The District Munsif, Katpadi.

¶23

+1cc to Mr.K.A.Ravindran, Advocate, S.R.No.104298

¶24

KJ(CO) CB(15/07/2020)

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Parthiban v. K.Balan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parthiban v. K.Balan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Muniappan Vs Muniammal Alias Muthulakshmi

P.Ramasamy Vs P.Palanisamy

V.Ashokkumar, Vs Kowsalya

S.Mohammed Ali Vs C.Mohan

Byrappa,S/O.Late Muniappa Vs Pramila,W/O.Choodappa

Ramathulsai Vs Mrs.Baby Saroja