JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The judgment-debtor is the petitioner before this Court challenging the legality of the order dated 11.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.M.A. No.12 of 2004 rejecting the prayer for amendment of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The case of the petitioner before the Executing Court is that due to typographical error some lines have been omitted in the petition filed under Section 47 C.P.C. and that the said lines are required to be incorporated by way of amendment. The further stand of the petitioner is that in view of the grounds taken by the decree-holders-opposite parties, the petition filed under Section 47 needs amendment for addition of certain new facts, which can be considered under the scope of the execution proceeding. 3. The decree-holders-opposite parties filed objection stating that amendment, if allowed, would change the nature and character of the Execution Proceeding. It was also the stand of the decree-holders-opposite parties that if the proposed amendment is for clarifying certain facts, which are already on record, the same is not necessary and, therefore, should not be allowed. Apart from the above, a legal objection was taken to the effect that there is no power left with the Executing Court to allow the petition filed for amendment of the petition under Section 47 of the C.P.C. 4. The learned Executing Court while dismissing the appli¬cation observed that the judgment-debtor-petitioner, by way of amendment wanted to add some new facts, which would change the nature and character of the Execution Case. 5. At the time of hearing of this case, the learned coun¬sel for the decree-holders-opposite parties raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition filed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. before the Executing Court on the ground that such provision is not applicable to the execution proceeding in view of Section 141 of the C.P.C. The learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Labany Mohankudo and others Vrs. Municipal Council, Parlakhemundi and others reported in 1975(2) C.W.R.1071. In the aforesaid decision, this Court referring to several decisions held that Section 141 is not applicable to proceedings in Execution Case. Hence, Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. 6. Municipal Council, Parlakhemundi and others reported in 1975(2) C.W.R.1071. In the aforesaid decision, this Court referring to several decisions held that Section 141 is not applicable to proceedings in Execution Case. Hence, Order 9, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Dolago¬binda Sahu Vrs. Chakradhar Mohapatra and others reported in A.I.R. 1955 Orissa 94 wherein this Court held as follows :- “On a review of the authorities referred to above, we are of opinion that the Court has power apart from the provisions of O.21, R.17, C.P.C. to amend an execution petition by addition of fresh properties to the list of properties appended to the origi¬nal execution petition provided the petition for amendment is filed before the expiry of the period of the 12 year limitation prescribed by S.48, C.P.C.” 7. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Bhimaraj Onkarmal Firm and another Vrs. Satyanarayan Satpathy and others reported in Volume 36 (1970) C.L.T. 1152. In the said decision, this Court also held that in exercise of power under Section 115 C.P.C. this Court should interfere with an order rejecting a petition filed for amendment of the cause title of the execution petition in order to do substantial justice. In the case of Bijoy Kumar Ash and others v. Smt. Bhagabati Dei reported in 1971 (2) C.W.R. 507 this Court held that though provisions of Order 9 do not apply to execution proceedings, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure an Execution Case can be restored when dismissed for default. In the case of State of Orissa v. Brajeswari Dibya and others reported in 54 (1982) C.L.T. 165 this Court also held that in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. an Execution Case could be re¬stored. 8. On analysis of all the above decisions, it would appear that this Court in the case of Labany Mohankudo and others Vrs. 8. On analysis of all the above decisions, it would appear that this Court in the case of Labany Mohankudo and others Vrs. Municipal Council, Parlakhemundi and others (supra) while decid¬ing that Section 141 has no application to execution proceedings and accordingly Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. has also no application, did not consider the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dolagobinda Sahu Vrs. Chakradhar Mohapatra and others (supra). The other decisions wherein it was held that in order to do substantial justice, this Court can exercise the power under Section 151 C.P.C. have also not been taken into consideration. Therefore, on analysis of the above decisions, I am of the view that even though Section 141 C.P.C. has no application to execu¬tion proceedings, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdic¬tion under Section 151 C.P.C. for doing substantial justice to the parties. In the present case the learned Executing Court has dismissed the petition solely on the ground that the judgment-debtor wants to add some new facts, which would change the nature and character of the Execution Case. There is no discussion as to how the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the Execution Case and without assigning any reason in this regard the petition having been rejected, I am of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the Executing Court for fresh disposal according to law. 9. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct the Executing Court to hear the petition for amendment filed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. afresh keeping in mind the deci¬sions referred to in this judgment and dispose of the petition by assigning reasons. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Application allowed.