JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This is a judgment-debtors revision against an order of the Munsif, Dhenkanal, allowing the prayer for amendment of the execution petition of the decree-holders. 2. The facts, shorn of details, are that the opposite parties obtained a decree for recovery of possession in respect of an area of Ae.0.001 dec. 5 kadis on 7-7-1955 and on 15-4-1966 they filed the petition for execution registered as Execution Case No. 12 of 1966. in the petition, as against Col. 7, only recovery of possession of A. 0.00 2x1/2 kadis was mentioned. On 8-12-1980 the Office pointed out the defect that from the certified copy of the decree and Schedule-B of the execution petition, it appeared that immovable property which was to be given delivery of possession was A.0,01.5 kadis, but in Co.7 of the execution petition, recovery of possession of only A.0.00.2x1/2 kadis was mentioned. An application for amendment was made on 12-3-1981 to substitute 'A.0.00.2x1/2 kadis by A.0.01 D.-5 kadis' in the execution petition and such amendment having been allowed, this revision has been filed. 3. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has urged that since the purported amendment to the execution petition was made long after the expiry of the limitation, the date of the decree being 7-7-1955, such amendment could not have been allowed. Developing the submission, he has submitted that the only provision for amendment of an execution petition is as provided under Order 21, Rule 17 of the CPC (shortly stated 'the Code') which stipulates that on the filing of the petition for execution, it has to be ascertained whether the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21 have been complied with and, if not, the Court shall allow the defect to be removed t hen and there or within a time to be fixed by it. If the defect is not so remedied, the Court is under a duty to reject the petition and where the application is allowed to be amended under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 17 (1), such amendment is to be deemed to have been an application presented on the date when it was first presented. After such stage is over, the application is admitted under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 of Order 21 and execution is to proceed. It is the sub-mission of Mr. After such stage is over, the application is admitted under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 17 of Order 21 and execution is to proceed. It is the sub-mission of Mr. Mohanty that once the execution petition is amended after complying the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2), it cannot be further amended thereafter, in support of which proposition, reliance has been placed on a decision in Smt. Sabitri Bala Mallick and Others Vs. Alak Ranjan Paul and Others, 4. A decree-holder applying for execution and seeking attachment of immovable property is required under Order 21, Rule 13 to mention at the foot the description of such property sufficient to identify the same and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, a specification of such boundaries or numbers; and a specification of the judgment-debtor's share or interest in such property to the best of the belief of the Appellant and so far as he has been able to ascertain the same. At the foot of the execution petition filed by the opposite parties, in Schedule B the property was described and identified as A.01.5 kadis north-east out of which Defendant had dispossessed A.0.01.5 kadis towards north as per rough sketch map and boundary given in the decree. Even though the property was so described in Schedule B, yet as against Col. 7 of the execution petition for description of the relief granted as per the decree, the opposite parties described it to be the relief granted in the decree for recovery of possession of the suit property A.0.00. 2x1/2 kadis in area as per the sketch map and boundary given in the decree, out of plot No. 1863, Khata No. 1817 in Nizgarh, Dhenkanal (as per Town Improvement Scheme Settlement). It thus appears that even though the opposite parties had correctly described the property in Schedule B to the execution petition, yet while stating all other details of the property correctly as regards the sketch map and boundary, plot No., khata No. as per the decree in Col. 7, only the area was wrongly mentioned which was sought to be rectified by way of amendment. 5. 7, only the area was wrongly mentioned which was sought to be rectified by way of amendment. 5. When an application for execution is made before the Court, an obligation arises for the Court to execute it and for such reason, the Court has a duty as envisaged under Order 21, Rule 17 of the Code to see if the application does not suffer from any defect of non-compliance of the Rules If to 14 of Order 21. If such defect is there, it is the responsibility of the Court to call upon the decree-holder to rectify the same either then and there or to allow some rime for removal of the same. If the Court has not discharged its obligation and has not pointed out such defect to the applicant an advantage cannot be obtained by the judgment-debtor for that reason, since the decree-holder is not to suffer only because there has been a lapse of the Court in complying with the provisions of law. If a defect which is liable to be removed under Rule 17 has not been pointed out by the Court earlier than expiry of the limitation for executing the decree, yet it cannot be said that the Court has no power to allow such removal of defect after the limitation has expired. It also cannot be held that, as has been contended by Mr. Mohanty, the defect was not only of a formal nature. As a matter of fact, the correct description of the property had already been given at the foot of the application in Schedule B thereof and the very prayer was for delivery of possession as per Schedule n and as per Col. 7 of the application. An authority for the view taken by me is available in AIR 1945 Mad 241 Divakaran Nambudiripad v. Koodalur Manakhal Brahmadathan Nambudiripad, wherein it was held that there is no option or discretion in the Court with regard to; ascertaining whether the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 have been complied with. 7 of the application. An authority for the view taken by me is available in AIR 1945 Mad 241 Divakaran Nambudiripad v. Koodalur Manakhal Brahmadathan Nambudiripad, wherein it was held that there is no option or discretion in the Court with regard to; ascertaining whether the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 have been complied with. Where the effect of the execution petition is that it is aimed at the immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors but the same is defective in view of the fact that particulars, such as are required by Rule 13 are not given, it is the duty of the Court to return the petition for amendment to the Petitioner after giving suitable time to enable the defects to be remedied. If no such action is taken by the Court, an amendment can be allowed under Order 21, Rule 17 even after lapse of twelve years from the date of decree. While it is true that an amendment in general is not to be allowed if an original cause of action brought on the same facts would be barred by the date of the application, yet the Court is not powerless to allow amendment even after the lapse of the period of limitation in suitable cases. In the ultimate analysis, two considerations weigh with Courts in allowing an amendment, the first being whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties and the second is whether the effect of allowing the amendment will deprive the opposite party of a valuable right which has accrued to him. There is no invariable principle in law barring allowing of amendments beyond the period of limitation and the rule against it is one more of propriety and equity than that of a statutory requirement. Considering the question under Order 6, Rule 17, it was held in AIR 1921 P.C. 50 Charan Das and Ors. v. Amir Khan and Ors. There is no invariable principle in law barring allowing of amendments beyond the period of limitation and the rule against it is one more of propriety and equity than that of a statutory requirement. Considering the question under Order 6, Rule 17, it was held in AIR 1921 P.C. 50 Charan Das and Ors. v. Amir Khan and Ors. that where the Plaintiffs, through some clumsy blundering, attempted to assert rights which they undoubtedly possessed under the statute but in a form which the statute did not permit, they should be at liberty to express their intention in a plainer and less ambiguous manner, and to amend the plaint so as to express the rights which it has been really their intention all along to establish, although the amendment of plaint is sought to be made at a time when the suit itself if instituted then, would be time-barred. And though such a power should not as a rule be exercised where its effect is to take away from a Defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases where such considerations are out-weighed by the special circumstances of the case. The aforesaid decision was followed in L.J. Leach and Company Ltd. Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co. and Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others saying that though as a rule the Court would decline to allow amendment if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application, yet it is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should be ordered and does not affect the power of the Court to order it if that is required in the interests of justice. A Bench of this Court has also taken the same view in Kaibala Padhan Vs. Sanyasi Sasamala and Another where it was held that it is open to the Court at any time to allow an amendment in a proper case in order to cure any defect in a petition for execution. Even apart from this power under Order 21, Rule 17(1) of the Code, the Court can in its general power allow such amendment. 6. Even apart from this power under Order 21, Rule 17(1) of the Code, the Court can in its general power allow such amendment. 6. In view of such consistent authorities, I do not think any illegal exercise of jurisdiction to have been made by the executing Court in allowing the amendment and hence the order does not call for any interference in revision. 7. The Revision Application is accordingly dismissed with costs as having no merit. Application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed