Execution amendment cannot substitute a different property after limitation; only formal defects in description may be corrected.
Order 21, Rule 17 CPC permits only formal correction of defects or incomplete descriptions in an execution application; it does not allow substitution of a wholly different immovable property. Where the original petition identified one property and the proposed amendment introduced a distinct property with different characteristics and location, the change was treated as more than a mere description correction. Because the amendment was sought after limitation had expired, it could not preserve the original execution proceeding as a continuation of the same application. The later execution step was therefore treated as a fresh application barred by limitation.
Issues: Whether an amendment to an execution application, which substituted a different immovable property for the property originally described, could be treated as a permissible amendment or as a continuation of the original execution application after the decree had become time-barred.
Analysis: The original execution petition had described one property, while the amendment sought to introduce a substantially different property having a different character, situation, village, thana, pargana, and incidence of rent. Such a change was not a mere correction of a defective description. Order 21, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was held to apply only to formal defects or incomplete descriptions that prevent proper identification of the property, not to the substitution of an entirely new property. Since the amendment was sought after limitation had run, it could not be treated as a fresh step preserving the original application merely by calling it an amendment or a continuation.
Conclusion: The amendment was not permissible under Order 21, Rule 17, and the later application was a fresh execution application barred by limitation. The order recalling the ex parte amendment was in principle, and the appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The decree-holder could not, after expiry of limitation, enlarge the execution petition by substituting a different property under the guise of amendment; the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Order 21, Rule 17 permits only formal correction of defects in an execution application and does not allow substitution of a wholly different property after limitation has expired.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
