- (1.) Execution of an eviction decree passed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff which was affirmed upto this Honble Court in Second Appeal, was resisted by the judgment debtors/petitioners by filing an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code giving rise to a Miscellaneous proceeding being Misc. Case No.165 of 2006. The bone of contention of the judgment debtors/petitioners in the said application was that the said decree was inexecutable due to wrong description of the boundary of the suit property mentioned in the decree. To be more precise, the contention of the petitioners was that the eastern and western boundaries of the suit property mentioned in the decree were erroneous and as such, the suit property cannot be identified with reference to the description of the property mentioned in the decree.
(2.) To substantiate the said contention regarding wrong description of the decreetal property mentioned in the said decree, the judgment debtors/petitioners filed an application for local inspection of the suit premises bearing premises no.27D, Haritaki Bagan Lane, Kolkata 700006, for ascertaining its true and correct boundaries.
(3.) In the aforesaid background, the decree-holder/opposite party filed two applications. One of such applications was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the description of the suit property as mentioned in the plaint. The other application was filed under Section 151 read with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the decree for rectification of the description of the decreetal property therein. Both the aforesaid applications of the decree-holder/opposite party were allowed by the learned Trial Judge.;