IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.06.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1106 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 K.P.Ponnusamy .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Ponnusamy Goundar 2. Devaraj 3. Leelavathi 4. Minor Karthika 5. Minor Gokul 6. Lakshmi .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed against the Fair and Final Order passed in E.A.No.133 of 2007 in E.A.No.247 of 2006 in E.P.No.33 of 2004 in O.S.No.99 of 1989, dated 04.09.2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam. For petitioner : Mr.D.Krishnakumar O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated, 04.09.2007 made in E.A.No.133 of 2007 in E.A.No.247 of 2006 in E.P.No.33 of 2004 in O.S.No.99 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam.
2. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the plaintiff before the trial court was decreed, wherein the name of the third respondent / fourth defendant is stated as Leelavathi, as stated in the plaint. By filing the Execution Application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner herein sought an amendment to amend the name of Leelavathi as Neelavathi.
3. The trial court, considering the facts and circumstances, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein by order, dated 04.09.2007. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner herein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the name of the third respondent / fourth defendant was stated in the plaint only as Leelavathi and accordingly, decree was drafted by the Court below. In such circumstances, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Civil Revision Petitioner herein cannot seek an amendment in the Execution Petition, without amending the name in the decree. Hence, if at all he could have filed the petition, seeking amendment in the decree before the Court, which has passed the decree.
5. It is a settled proposition of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the Judgment and Decree rendered by the trial court, while executing its jurisdiction.
6. As the revision petitioner had admittedly filed the petition for amendment before the Executing Court to amend the name of the third respondent herein without amending the decree, the same was rightly dismissed by the Executing Court. In such circumstances, I find no error or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is not legally sustainable, as there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
tsvn
To
The District Munsif Court
Kangayam