CRP(MD)/1792/2026 of Chinnaganapathy Vs Kalanjiam on 1 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner against the fair order and decreetal order dated 12-06-2026 in E.A.No. 65 of 2018 in E.P.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No. 5 of 1996, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.

2. The revision petitioner is the 8th defendant in the suit. The counsel for the revision petitioner states that during the pendency of the suit, an amendment petition was filed seeking deletion of Items 21 to 30 in the Second Schedule of the plaint. The said amendment petition was allowed. Subsequently, three items, namely, Items 21 to 23, were included.

C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026 However, due to inadvertence, the said amendment was not carried out in the schedule of properties in the decree.

3. It is further stated that the preliminary decree as well as the final decree were passed, but the amendment carried out pursuant to the order passed in the amendment petition was not incorporated in the schedule of properties in either the decree or the final decree. Subsequently, the decree-holder filed the execution petition, wherein also the same schedule of properties was shown. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to prevent the execution of the decree and delivery of possession, contending that the schedule of properties in the decree had not been corrected in accordance with the amendment allowed by the trial Court.

4. The revision petitioner further submits that the plaintiff had also filed an amendment petition in the year 2005. However, the said petition was not returned and it was not re-presented, for reasons best known to the plaintiff.

C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the trial Court dismissed the petition by observing that the error in the schedule of properties was only a clerical and accidental mistake and that the same would not affect the division of the properties. It was further observed that the Commissioner, who had already been appointed, had inspected the properties and had taken into consideration the properties which were deleted and the properties which were subsequently included, and had filed his report. On the said reasoning, the petition filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the preliminary decree and the final decree have not been corrected in accordance with the amendment order. Therefore, the execution Court cannot order delivery of possession in respect of properties which do not form part of the decree. According to him, the execution Court can execute the decree only as it stands and cannot go beyond the decree.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent admit that the deleted portions were

C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026 not corrected in the preliminary decree and the final decree. However, it is submitted that the Commissioner, who was appointed in the final decree proceedings, did not take into consideration the said items and had inspected only the properties which were the subject matter of the suit and allotted the respective shares. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the mistake committed in the execution petition is only a clerical mistake and the delivery of possession can be effected in accordance with the Commissioner's report.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. A perusal of the records reveals that both in the preliminary decree and in the final decree, the deleted items have not been deleted and the subsequently added items have not been incorporated in the schedule of properties. Admittedly, the amendment allowed by the trial Court has not been incorporated in the preliminary decree as well as in the final decree.

C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026

10. In such circumstances, the execution Court cannot proceed to order delivery of possession in respect of the properties in the execution petition merely by treating the same as a clerical or accidental error. The jurisdiction of the execution Court is confined to executing the decree as it stands. The execution Court cannot travel beyond the decree or execute a decree in respect of properties which do not form part of the decree.

11. At the same time, this Court is of the view that the mistake appears to have occurred inadvertently and that the same can be rectified by carrying out the amendment already allowed by the trial Court. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the plaintiff is directed to file an appropriate petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for carrying out the necessary corrections in the preliminary decree as well as in the final decree, in terms of the order passed in the amendment petition in I.A.No.203 of 1982, dated 08/04/1982 and thereafter to carry out the corresponding correction in the execution petition. Except with regard to the properties covered under the Second Schedule, both parties have no objection to proceeding with the execution and delivery of possession in accordance with the judgment and final decree.

C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026

12. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the execution in respect of the other properties, in accordance with the Commissioner's report, subject to the above clarification. Insofar as the properties covered under the Second Schedule are concerned, the plaintiff shall first carry out the necessary corrections in the preliminary decree and final decree pursuant to the amendment already allowed. Thereafter, the Commissioner shall inspect the properties, if necessary, and file an appropriate report. The execution Court shall await the outcome of the said proceedings and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law.

13. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

01.09.2026 Index : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No RM To The Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.

C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.1792 of 2026 01.09.2026