H. N. KIRANKUMAR Vs. SUNDARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review petition is taken on its merits with the consent of both parties.

(2.) Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the writ proceedings for the convenience of the parties.

(3.) Petitioners who are decree holders in F.D.P.No. 1/2018 had filed a writ petition seeking for setting aside the order of 24/1/2015 passed on I.A. Nos.12, 13 and 14. I.A.12 which was filed seeking to amend the final decree petition schedule, I.A.13 was filed seeking to amend the plaint schedule and I.A.14 was filed seeking to amend the preliminary decree schedule. In the order passed in the writ proceedings, the Court noticed that the applications were filed to incorporate the measurement with respect to the property bearing No.5/39. The Court noticed the contention that when the decree was sought to be executed in final decree proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed and the Commissioner had furnished a report stating that he was not in a position to measure the portion of the property described as property No.5/39 as there was objections for measurement. The Court noticed that there was no dispute as regards to the existence of the said property as the same was enumerated in the schedule.