NAGARAJU Vs. K RAMI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent filed O.S.No.118 of 2001 against the petitioners in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur, for recovery of certain amount. After the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.98 of 2002. He prayed for sale of an item of landed property, in Sy.No.529 of Dharmapuram. THE description of the property was furnished in the E.P., as well as the sale proclamation. THE property was attached and thereafter, it was brought to sale. THE 2nd respondent emerged as the successful bidder. A sale certificate, delivery warrant and delivery receipt were issued in favour of the 2nd respondent, by the Executing Court.

(2.) THE respondents filed E.A.No.77 of 2008, under Section 153 and Order VI Rule 17, read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to amend the schedule in the sale proclamation, sale certificate, delivery warrant and delivery receipt, to incorporate the name of 'Halaharvi' in the place of 'Dharmapuram'. THEy pleaded that due to inadvertence, the name of the Village was mentioned as Dharmapuram, though the description of the property suits with the one, at Halaharvi. According to them, the petitioners did not have any right over the property at Dharmapuram, and that the village, Halaharvi is situated just at 2 K.M. from Dharmapuram.

(3.) SRI K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that there is no property with Sy.No.529, and dimensions, as mentioned in the schedule, at Dharmapuram and due to inadvertence, the name of the village Halaharvi was not mentioned. He contends that the parties to the E.P., proceeded on the assumption that the property with Halaharvi village, and the amendment sought is innocuous and technical in nature. He submits that the Executing Court has taken a pragmatic view, and the rights that have accrued to the respondents cannot be taken away on the basis of a typographical mistake.