MOHAMED ANWAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents could not be heard as he was not present. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the decree-holder in execution case No. 65 of 1991 and the two respondents are the judgment-debtors therein. Undisputedly, petitioner had obtained a money decree on 15-9-1979 in original suit No. 30 of 1978 against respondents. The said decree was put to execution in execution case No. 65 of 1991 against respondents for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of certain immovable property described therein as belonging to judgment-debtor-1. Subsequently, it was discovered by the petitioner-decree holder that the said immovable property had been transferred by respondent-1 (judgment-debtor-1) in favour of his mother by a registered conveyance deed dated 13-6-1979. Then on 24-7-1992 petitioner made la. No. Iii under order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, civil procedure code before the court below praying for permission to amend the execution petition to substitute the mode of execution thereon as by arrest and detention of respondent instead of by attachment and sale of said property. ( 3 ) THE learned judge of the executing court has rejected the petitioner's said la. No. Iii by his impugned order on the ground that the same was filed after expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree and that if the same is allowed it would cause prejudice to respondents and alter the nature of the execution petition. ( 4 ) THIS reasoning of the court below has been assailed as untenable by the learned counsel for petitioner. To support this contention reliance was placed by him on two decisions of this court in marulasiddappa v lakshmipathi and others and rau parsu mardikhot v kallappa bahu shetti and a decision of Calcutta high court in shekendarali meah v abdul gafur choudhury and others, and also on a decision of Patna high court in pratap udai nath sah deo v baraik lai sahi and others. Besides, he also sought to draw support from a full bench decision of Andhra Pradesh high court in bhoganadham seshaiah v budhi veerabhadrayya and others. Besides, he also sought to draw support from a full bench decision of Andhra Pradesh high court in bhoganadham seshaiah v budhi veerabhadrayya and others. ( 5 ) THIS court in marulasiddappa's case, supra, has held that;"the failure to file a schedule of immovable properties along with the execution application is a mere defect which can be cured by filing a schedule of such properties more than 12 years after the date of the decree, as it is a defect which comes within the scope of rules 11 to 14 of order 21, Civil Procedure Code and can be allowed to be remedied under Rule 17 of that order". (vide head note (a) para-15) in rau parsu's case, supra, it is observed that: "where the decree-holder, under the mistaken belief that the judgment-debtor was dead, prayed for the execution of the decree against his son who was described as judgment-debtor and, on subsequently discovering the mistake, made an application after limitation to amend his execution application by substituting for the son of the judgment-debtor the judgment-debtor himself, and the amendment was allowed the amendment relates back to the date of the presentation of the defective execution application and the execution application in so far as it related to the judgment-debtor is not time barred". The full bench of andra pradesh high court in the case of b. Seshaiah's case, supra, dealing with the scope of repealed Section 48 of Civil Procedure Code has stated that:"it is a mistake to think that Section 48 lays down any inflexible Rule in not allowing any amendment whatever may be the circumstances of the case, to the execution petition merely on the ground that if permitted it would be contrary to Section 48 or article 182 of the Limitation Act". it further proceeded to observe that;"where the execution petition for sending the judgment-debtor in civil prison is sought to be amended after twelve years claiming set off the amendment allowed on ground that if not allowed it would cause injustice and enable the judgment-debtor to take unfair advantage and deprive the decree-holder of his legitimate claim". similar propositions are made by the High Court of Calcutta and Patna in emperor v ramjanam singh and suraj prasad oja v ram lal singh and others. similar propositions are made by the High Court of Calcutta and Patna in emperor v ramjanam singh and suraj prasad oja v ram lal singh and others. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above stated pronouncements of this court, as also of the high courts of andhra pradesh, Calcutta and patna, it becomes clear that the impugned order of the court-below is patently untenable in law inasmuch as mere substitution in the execution petition by amendment of the mode for recovery of the decretal amount after twelve years of the date of decree will not be legally barred by limitation and that such amendment does not alter the nature of the relief of realisation of the decretal amount sought by the petitioner-decree-holder. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the court below is set aside and the petitioner's application i. e. , i. a. No. Iii (which is shown as i. a. No. Ii in the operative portion of the impugned order) is allowed permitting him to effect the amendment in the execution petition No. 65 of 1991 pending on the file of the court-below, as prayed in the said application. Parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .