LI Network
Published on: 29 September 2023 at 11:05 IST
The Karnataka High Court has issued a ruling stating that a decree holder must first amend the plaint schedule and decree schedule before making amendments to the draft sale deed.
The petitioner, who was the decree holder in this case, had approached the court after application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking an amendment to the draft sale deed which was rejected.
Justice S.G. Pandit, presiding over a Single Bench, noted, “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the writ petition papers, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the trial Judge, rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner decree holder. Unless the petitioner decree holder gets amended the plaint schedule as well as decree schedule, mere amendment to the draft sale deed would not be permissible.”
Background of the Case:
The petitioner, as the decree holder, had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract, which resulted in a judgment and decree in 2017.
The High Court confirmed this decree earlier in the current year. In order to execute the decree, the petitioner filed an execution petition before the Senior Civil Judge, who subsequently ordered the execution of the sale deed through a Court Commissioner.
However, the Court Commissioner returned the draft sale deed. Consequently, the petitioner decree holder filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. In the affidavit, the petitioner explained that, based on the Court Commissioner’s report, Survey number 65/8 had been altered to 65/43, which was now owned by M.S. Manjunath @ Sombegowda, necessitating an amendment to the draft sale deed.
In light of these circumstances, the High Court observed, “The Executing Court is required to execute the decree as it is and the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The observations made by the Executing Court in that regard are correct and need no interference.”
The Court further clarified that Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC could not be invoked to amend the draft sale deed as requested in the application.
As a result, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue any other appropriate legal remedy available.
Case Title: Jayanthi @ Rangamma v. Puttamma
