is no dispute with regard to the extents in item No.1 and by the proposed amendment the said extents are also not altered, but there is a marginal difference with regard to the boundaries. In the original EP schedule property, the boundaries for item No.1 are shown taking all the extents as one, whereas in the proposed amendment, marginally different boundaries are shown for two separate bits in item No.1. So far as item No.2 is concerned, extent alone is not shown earlier, but the door number and assessment number for item No.2 is mentioned in the EP schedule property pending the suit. It is, therefore, evident that the identity of the property is not in dispute and it is only a technical objection raised by the respondent-judgment debtor, that resulted in the petitioner’s application for amendment. Even if Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to execution proceedings, the court would be entitled to correct the errors of clerical nature under inherent powers in terms of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to precisely identify the property. I, therefore, do not see any impediment in ordering the amendment as sought for by the petitioner.
