P. KODDANDA RAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision arises out of execution proceedings. It raises the interpretation and the effect of the Amendment to Or. 34, Rule 15 C. P. C. by Amending Act 104 of 76.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in controversy. The petitioner temple obtained a decree against the defendant-tenants for recovery of Rs. 2,102-82 paise towards the arrears of makta and also obtained a charge for the recovery of the said amount in respect of B schedule property.

( 3 ) WHEN the decree-holder filed the present E. P. for the recovery of the decretal amount by sale of the B schedule property in respect of which charge was created by the decree, the said application was dismissed holding that the decree-holder must obtain a final decree as the direction in the decree is not sufficient for him to execute the decree and the Amending act 104 of 76 has retrospective effect. Hence the revision. The defendants judgment-debtors are not represented by Counsel and hence I requested sri A. Ramakrishna to assist the court and he promptly did so.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the question raised it is necessary to look at Or. 34, Rule 15 as amended by Act 104 of 1976. "15. (1) All the provisions co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document