POLA VISHWANADHAM Vs. KALYANI AGENCIES WARANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-2-2004 in EA No.349 of 2002 in EP No.366 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the judgment-debtors in EP No.366 of 2000, which was filed by the respondent herein for execution of the decree in OS No.118 of 1991 for recovery of amount due from the defendants/judgment-debtors. Pending the suit, the petitioner filed IA No.690 of 1991 for attachment before judgment of certain properties of the defendants. In the said application the defendants filed an undertaking that they will not sell the said properties, on the basis of which, IA No.690 of 1991 was closed. It is to be noted that along with the Memo of undertaking the defendants furnished the value of the said property as recorded in the "Market Value Estimation". After the suit was decreed the plaintiff/decree holder filed E.P.No.366 of 2000 for attachment and sale of the same property which was specified in the undertaking given by the defendant in IA No.690 of 1991 i.e., premises bearing Municipal No.8/705 to an extent of 142.29 Sq.meters within the boundaries specified thereunder. The Court below has ordered sale of the E.P. schedule property to be held on 2-6-2002. While so the decree holder/respondent herein filed E.A. No.349 of 2002 seeking amendment of the E.P. schedule by describing the schedule property as 175 Sq.Yds., and the extent of construction as 3,064.62 S.ft., as recorded in the "Market Value Estimation" stating that the E.P. schedule property was described basing on the undertaking given by the judgment-debtor during the pendency of the suit in the application filed for attachment before judgment, however, after the sale of the attached property was ordered it was noticed that certain errors were crept in the description of the E.P. schedule and therefore, the same requires to be amended. The said application filed by the decree holder was opposed by the judgment-debtor contending that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 17 of CPC do not apply and therefore the amendment of the execution petition was prayed for cannot be ordered. The Court below having considered the entire material on record by order dated 19-2-2004 allowed the application, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record.