PALANI Vs. SANTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed by the judgement debtors, challenging the amendment applications filed by the decree holder being entertained and allowed by the executing Court. In eight execution petitions, eight separate applications for amendments have been taken out and the executing Court has proceeded to allow the amendment applications, as against which, the present revision petitions have been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners in all the revision petitions and Mr.M.V. Seshachari, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 in all the revision petitions and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 5 and 6 in all the revision petitions.

(3.) Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would first and foremost contend that the decree holder has sought to amend the schedule in the execution petition, without even seeking amendment of the plaint and the preliminary decree, as also the report of the first Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out to the inconsistencies with regard to the extent of the property and survey numbers and state that the discrepancies go to the root of the matter and without amending the preliminary decree, after amending the plaint, the respondent was not entitled to straight away seek amendment of the EP alone.