JUDGMENT : The main prayer in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as follows : “a. Call for the records relating to Ext.P8 Common Order and set aside the same and allow Exts.P2 to P4 applications; b. grant cost of the proceedings and c. such other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper to grant.” 2. Heard Sri.Shiju Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Smt.P.K. Radhika, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Petitioner is the decree holder in E.P. No. 34/2010 and he bid the court auction held in the EP and obtained Ext.P1 auction certificate. Later the petitioner filed EA No.34/2015 for the delivery of the immovable properties (2 items) covered by Ext.P1 auction certificate. It is stated that the property scheduled in Ext.P1 auction certificate is on the basis of the prior deeds and in consonance with the boundaries. Since the Amin reported that the property is not identifiable, for the purpose of effecting delivery alone, the petitioner had filed Exts.P2 to P4 applications to amend the scheduled EA for delivery and the auction certificate, by citing the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said applications as per Exts.P2 to P4 were opposed by the respondents by filing Exts.P5 to P7 objections. The court below, after hearing both sides, has passed the impugned Ext.P8 order, rejecting the said request of the petitioner. It is this order at Ext.P8 is under challenge. 4. A reading of the impugned Ext.P8 order would disclose that the petitioner/decree holder has purchased the property for Rs.10,00,100/- and the sale has been confirmed in the name of the decree holder Company on 24.07.2018. The respondents/Judgment Debtors were all throughout pointing out that the property is not identifiable, presumably on account of the mis-descriptions of the property in the Schedule to the EP and EA for delivery. 5. After having gone through the impugned order this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial court that the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the schedule as sought for, is correct and proper. 6. This Court in the judgment in Chandradas. K.P. v. A.Nizar & Ors. 5. After having gone through the impugned order this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial court that the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the schedule as sought for, is correct and proper. 6. This Court in the judgment in Chandradas. K.P. v. A.Nizar & Ors. reported in 2009(3) KHC 841 , has dealt with a case of misdescription of the property in execution proceedings and has held that it is the judicial obligation of the court to ensure that the judgment debtor, whose property is being sold, is entitled to a fairly accurate description of his property so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders, who would make fair bids of the property having regard to the size, location and other features. In the facts of the case in Chandradas K.P's case supra, it was found that the description of the property, which was put up for sale in execution proceedings, did not show the existence of the house, in which, the applicant therein was residing and this misdescription by way of omission had certainly dissuaded the intending bidders from participating in the auction. It was held that the question has to be considered from the perspective of the person whose property is being sold as also from the perspective of the class of intending bidders, when they come across the sale proclamation advertised in the newspapers or any other medium. Accordingly, it was held that it is the judicial obligation of the court to ensure that the judgment-debtor, whose property is being sold, is entitled to a fairly accurate description of his property so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders, who would make fair bids of the property, etc. It will be profitable to refer para 9 of the abovesaid decision of this Court in Chandradas K.P's case reported in 2009 (3) KHC 841 , p.p.845-846, which reads as follows: “9. It is an admitted fact that the description of the property put up for sale did not show the existence of the house in which the appellant is residing. This mis description by way of omission had certainly dissuaded the intending bidders from participating in the auction. It is an admitted fact that the description of the property put up for sale did not show the existence of the house in which the appellant is residing. This mis description by way of omission had certainly dissuaded the intending bidders from participating in the auction. The question has to be considered from the perspective of the person whose property is being sold as also from the perspective of the class of intending bidders when they come across the sale proclamation advertised in the newspapers or any other medium. It is the obligation of the Court to ensure that the judgment debtor whose property is being sold is entitled to a fairly accurate description of his property so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders who would make fair bids of the property having regard to the size, location and other features of the property. A material mis description in a sale proclamation would vitiate the sale. (See -- Jaikisandas Balchand Pamnani v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, AIR 1991 Bombay 341. In Rukmani Ammal v. Subramaniya, AIR 1940 Mad. 82 , the description of the property given in the sale proclamation was punja, but the property was actually a thope containing large number of mango and coconut trees. The above mis description resulted in intending bidders not participating in the auction and this was held to be a ground falling under O.21 R.90 CPC. In Rajaram Nathuji Pathode v. Maniram Sambha Kose, AIR 1975 Bombay 1, the existence of a well suited for irrigating the property was omitted to be shown resulting in the sale not attracting more bidders and that was held sufficient to set aside the sale.” 7. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Babu John v. A.K.Ramakrishnan & Anr. reported in 2016 (2) KHC 551 (D.B) has held that in a case where the sale was conducted in violation of Order XXI Rule 64 C.P.C. the description of the property in the sale proclamation was not proper. It was also held thereon that prejudice has been caused thereby to the judgment-debtor. It will be noteworthy to refer to para 15 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Babu John's case reported in 2016(2) KHC 515 (D.B) p.521-522, which reads as follows: '15. It was also held thereon that prejudice has been caused thereby to the judgment-debtor. It will be noteworthy to refer to para 15 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Babu John's case reported in 2016(2) KHC 515 (D.B) p.521-522, which reads as follows: '15. Secondly, law is also settled that under R.66 of Order XXI, the proclamation shall be drawn up as fairly and accurately as possible and Clause (e) of sub-rule (2) mandates that every other thing which Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to Judge of the nature and value of the property shall be included in the proclamation. The extracted portion of the impugned order would show that despite the fact that the property sold had a structure with RCC roof having plinth area of more than 2500 sq. feet, that was not mentioned in the proclamation of sale. Such an omission, an admitted fact, indicates the non - compliance of R.66(2)(e) of Order XXI CPC. This also is in violation of the obligation of the execution Court in giving necessary particulars in a proclamation. In this context, the judgment of this Court in Chandradas v. A. Nizar, 2009 (3) KHC 841 : 2009 (4) KLT SN 8 : ILR 2009 (3) Ker. 763, being relevant, is extracted thus: "An obligation cast on the Court to incorporate such relevant particulars which even the decree - holder omits to furnish. If there has been any failure on the part of the Court in that regard, the judgment - debtor to whom notice has been given cannot be found fault with for not raising objections with regard to omissions which the Court considers material. It is an admitted fact that the description of the property put up for sale did not show the existence of the house in which the appellant is residing. This mis - description by way of omission had certainly dissuaded the intending bidders from participating in the auction. The question has to be considered from the perspective of the person whose property is being sold as also from the perspective of the class of intending bidders when they come across the sale proclamation advertised in the newspapers or any other medium. The question has to be considered from the perspective of the person whose property is being sold as also from the perspective of the class of intending bidders when they come across the sale proclamation advertised in the newspapers or any other medium. It is the obligation of the Court to ensure that the judgment - debtor whose property is being sold is entitled to a fairly accurate description of his property so as to secure the presence of such class of bidders who would make fair bids of the property having regard to the size, location and other features of the property. A material mis - description in a sale proclamation would vitiate the sale." 8. It is the admitted case of the petitioner/decree holder in this case that there has been substantial mis-descriptions of the property in the E.P. and the E.A., which are now sought to be corrected by the applications for amendment as per Exts.P2 to P-4, which seek amendment of the schedule of the E.A. for delivery and the auction certificate by citing the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. If these vital mis-descriptions were avoided and the property was properly and correctly described, then certainly interested bidders would have taken due interest for participation in the sale proceedings and presumably, it could be only on account of such circumstances that there were no other bidders except the petitioner decree-holder, which led to the petitioner/decree holder purchasing the property for Rs.10,00,110/-, whereby the sale has been confirmed in the name of the petitioner/decree-holder company. If the amendment applications to amend E.A. for delivery and auction certificate are permitted by this Court, as now sought for by the prayers in the present petition filed before this Court, then the same would be highly illegal and ultra vires and would also amount to perpetrating injustice on the judgment-debtor. The power of amendment conferred as per Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot certainly be invoked in the facts and circumstances as the one which arises in the instant case, as otherwise it would cause irreparable injury and prejudice to the judgment debtor. 9. Faced with the situation, Sri.Shiju Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders in that regard and may give liberty to the petitioner to file fresh execution petition. 9. Faced with the situation, Sri.Shiju Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may pass appropriate orders in that regard and may give liberty to the petitioner to file fresh execution petition. In this view of the matter, it is ordered that the entire sale proceedings (including the confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate) pursuant to E.P. No.34/2010 on the file of the First Additional District Court, Palakkad will stand set aside. The petitioner will have to return the original sale certificate to the execution court without any further delay. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already returned back the original sale certificate to the execution court concerned. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/decree holder that the arbitral award has been passed in the year 2008 and therefore there is no bar of limitation in filing a fresh E.P. and that as of now, the period of limitation for execution of decree has not expired. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh Execution Petition within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, provided, the petitioner can convince the execution court that he has already returned the original sale certificate and provided the filing of such fresh E.P. is not barred by limitation. In case the original sale certificate has not so far been returned, then the petitioner shall return the sale certificate along with the fresh execution petition that may be filed. 10. It is made clear that there is no question of allowing the civil court invoking the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 17 which relates to the matter of amendment of pleadings, for amendment of the schedules as sought for by the petitioner at this stage of the matter, the trial court is fully right in holding so as per the impugned order. With these observations and directions, this Original Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.