SETHURAMACHANDRAN Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 127 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Pattukkottai. He suffered decree in the said suit and the decree holder one Veera Selvam levied execution proceedings in E.P.No.63 of 2003 for sale of the attached properties. The Court conducted sale, in which the respondent was the auction purchaser. He got the Sale Certificate from the Court and filed E.A. No. 54 of 2007 for delivery of the property from this petitioner. In the mean while, one Palanivel brother of this petitioner filed a claim petition claiming that the properties attached belong to him. After enquiry, the petition was dismissed. There was no appeal in E.A. No. 54 of 2007. The Senior Bailiff of the Court was directed to deliver the property. He came to the property site along with the Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer. Even though the property was identified, since the delivery warrant did not contain the boundaries, they decided that without the presence of four boundaries in the delivery warrant, the property could not be delivered. As such, the delivery warrant was returned to the Court. Hence, an application in E.A. No. 3 of 2008 has been filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the execution petition in E.A. No. 54 of 2007.

(2.) In the counter filed by this petitioner, it is alleged that only on the strength of the Sale Certificate, delivery should be effected in favour of the auction purchaser and without amending the Sale Certificate in E.A. No. 54 of 2007, it ought not to be amended and hence, this petition is not sustainable.

(3.) On a perusal of the records, the learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai allowed the application in E.A. No. 3 of 2008 observing that the Sale Certificate is also to be amended and an amendment of Sale Certificate has to be issued and necessary stamp papers shall be produced by the auction purchaser, then, the order for delivery could be passed, that merely because the warrant was returned for lack of four boundaries, there is no need to amend the same and that if the auction purchaser intends to take delivery, necessary orders will be passed and on that basis, the delivery warrant will be issued. Challenging the above said order, the petitioner is before this Court.