P L D 1995 Lahore 95 (PLP)

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.20,

000. The appellants/defendants appeared in the Court. The parties compromised and the statements of their learned counsel were recorded, according to which the suit was decreed to the extent of Rs.8,000, which was payable in two equal installments on 15-1-1992 and 15-4-1992 and in case of default, the decree was deemed to be for Rs.20,

000. The appellants failed to pay the amount. The respondent initiated execution proceedings for sum of Rs.8,000 on 12-5-1992, however, thereafter, he moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with section 151, C.P.C. for amendment of the execution petition. The appellants contested this application but the executing Court accepted the same vide order dated 28-2-1993; hence, the present appeal.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the petition could have been amended uptil the time it was registered but thereafter it could not be amended and additional amount claimed. In this behalf. reference is made to Order XXXI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and reliance is placed on Abbasuddin Chaudhary v. Chandra Nlohan Chaudhary and others PLD 1967 Dacca 512.

3. On the other hand, it is argued that rule 17 of Order XXI, C.P.C. is not applicable in the present case because it deals with the cases covered by rules 11 to 14 of Order XXI, C.P.C.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code and the, precedent case. Before proceeding any further, it is worthwhile to refer to rules 11 to 14 summarily. Clause (1) of Rule 11 deals with oral application for execution of money decree, while clause (2) deals with the written application and its requirements. Rule 12. deals with the application for attachment of movable property not in judgment debtor's possession, whereas rule 13 deals with the application for attachment of immovable property to contain certain particulars and Rule 14 deals with power to require certified extract from Collector's register in certain cases. Then comes rule 17, which reads as under:-- "

17. Procedure on receivine application for execution of decree.--(1) On receiving an application for the execution of a decree as provided by rule 11, sub-rule (2), the Court shall ascertain whether such of tbg requirements of rules 11 to 14 as may be applicable to the case have been complied with; and, if they have not been complied with, the Court may reject the application, or may allow the defect to be remedied then and there or within a time to be fixed by it. (2) Where an application is amended under the provisions of sub-rule 01 , it shall be deemed to have been an application in accordance with law and presented on the date when it was first presented. (3) Every amendment made under this rule shall be signed or initiated by the Judge. (4) When the application is admitted, the Court shall enter in the proper register a note of the application and the date on which it was made, and shall, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, order execution of the decree according to the nature of the application: Provided that, in the case of a decree for the payment of money, the value of the property attached shall, as nearly as may be, correspond with the amount due under the decree." It is clear from perusal of the provisions of rules il to 14 and 17 quoted above that it has no application to the case in hand. The mere appearance of the words `amended' and `amendment' in clauses 2 and-3 of rule 17 do not make it applicable to the present case because, the words `amended' and `amendment' have been used with reference to the provisions of rules 11 to 14 and not generally.

5. This is not all. Even in the case of Abbasuddin Chowdhury PLD 1967 Dacca 512, it was clearly held that there is no embargo upon granting of amendment in execution proceedings. The executing Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it strictly in accordance with law and facts on record. The order does not call for interference in appeal.

6. Apart from the above, this appeal is utterly misconceived yet for another reason. It is clear from Rule 112(1) of Order XXI that in case of money decree, even the decree-holder can make a verbal prayer for execution of the decree. If looked from this angle, then the argument that the execution petition cannot be amended subsequently is misconceived and against the spirit of this provision.

7. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. A.A./M-1896/L Appeal dismissed.