MADHABANANDA MALLICK Vs. R.B.TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the Decree -holder in Execution Case No. 8 of 1996. The decree was passed in the original jurisdiction by the High Court at Calcutta. As per the statement in the execution petition that was a money decree which was passed on 1.2.1984. That decree was transferred to Orissa for execution and registered as Execution Case No. 8 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhadrak. Plaintiff/decree -holder has claimed for realisation of an amount of Rs. 2,59,378.43 paise and in Column 10 of the execution petition, relating to the mode in which assistance of the Court is required, petitioner has stated that "I pray that the total amount of Rs. 2,59,378.43 paise (together with the interest on the principal sum up to the date of payment) and the cost of taking out this execution be realised by attachment and sale of the immovable property of the defendants 2 and 3 specified at the foot of this application and he paid to me." At the foot of that application he has given particulars of land in six lots totally measuring an area of Ac. 11.43 decimals Petitioner did not furnish the valuation statement nor the Court below pursued that matter. Be that as it may, an application filed by the petitioner to amend the execution petition by amending the schedule of the landed properties, sought to be sold in satisfaction of the decretal dues, was objected to by the J.Drs. on the ground of limtation. On 6.8.1998 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhadrak passed the impugned order by allowing the prayer of the decree -holder to delete plot Nos. 366 and 367 (lot No. 6) but rejected the prayer to include Plot Nos. 368 and 369 in the schedule of the land proposed to be sold in satisfaction of the decree.

(2.) PETITIONER argued that the ground assigned by the Court below regarding the amendment being bared by law of limited is not correct. On the other hand, opposite party advanced argument supporting the impugned order.