A decree-holder can in law file two execution petitions when it is clear that the execution in each petition is only for the decree amount due from the defendants concerned in that petition.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by one of the judgment-debtors (second defendant) is directed against the order of dismissal in E. A. No. 205 of 1957 in O. S. No. 124 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kakinada. The respondent herein is the decree-holder (plaintiff ).

( 2 ) THE material facts are briefly these: A firm of Sait Chunilal Moolchand filed O. S. No, 124 of 1954 against Chundrapu Lovaraju and the present appellant on an amount due, on a settlement of accounts, towards the principal and interest. The first defendant contended in the suit that he was entitled to the benefits of Madras Act IV of 1938 and the lower court allowed that plea and restricted his liability under the decree to an amount of Rs. 14,619-13-7, while against the appellant, a decree was pawed for Rs. 19,282-1-3. In execution of the decree, the respondent filed E. P. No. 261 of 1956 against Chundrapu Lovaraju, (first defendant) for the full sum of the decree against Mm and got his properties attached and brought them to sale on 25-2-1957. While that F. P. was pending, the respondent filed a separate execution petition (E. P. No. 42 of 1957) against the appellant for the entire amount of Rs. 19. 282-1-3 and subsequent interest and cost of suit and got attached his cargo of fibre bales which had been loaded in the boats of D. S. Narayana and Co. , on 17-2-1957. Thereupon, the appellant filed E. A. No. 205 of 1957 praying that the attachment may be restricted to an amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 being the difference between the amount payable under the decree by the 1st defendant and the amount payable thereunder by the appellant, i. e. , Rs. 19,282-1-3 minus Rs. 14,619-13-7 and that the attachment may be raised after receiving the said amount from the appellant. The respondent Sled E. A. No. 207 of 1957 with which we are not concerned here. The learned Subordinate Judge heard the E. As. together and passed a single common order dismissing E. A. No. 205 of 1957 and allowing E. A. No. 207 of 1957. The second defendant being aggrieved with the order of dismissal in E. A. No. 205 of 1957 has preferred the above appeal.

( 3 ) THE simple point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether smmultaneous execution can proceed in two separate applications against two different judgment-debtors for the same amount due under the decree, at one and the same time?

( 4 ) AT the outset it may be stated that no direct decision bearing on this point has been placed before us and arguments proceeded only on general lines of reasoning with the aid of some decisions relating to similar matter.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that as an earlier E. P. No. 261 of 1956 against the first defendant for Rs. 14,000. 00 and odd was pending, a subsequent E. P. 42 of 1957 against the second defendant can only be for the sum which was due from the latter less what was due from the former. In other words, his grievance is that the decree-holder is anyhow going to realise the amount decreed against the first defendant by sale of the house property in that execution petition and hence, he cannot be allowed to execute the decree against the appellant for the entire amount for which a decree was passed against him. The argument proceeds on the basis that, as regards the sum of Rs. 14,619-13-7, there cannot be two E. Ps. simultaneously pending against the two defendants. We are unable to accede to this contention. For the decree-holder is entitled under law to proceed simultaneously against the different judgment-debtors in execution of his decree and even the specific permission of the Court is not required for such a course. There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code or in any other law which lays down positively that several applications for execution of a decree cannot be filed simultaneously. Under Order 21, Rule 11 (2) (c), C. P. C. , the decree-holder has to mention in an E. P. only "whether any, and (if any), what payment or other adjustment o