( 1 ) THESE are the objections filed through EA 472/2001 against the instant execution petition filed pursuant to the award dated 17. 1. 2001,

( 2 ) AT the very outset, maintainability of the instant petition has been challenged on the ground that it does not carry verification as per requirement of law which according to Dr. K. S. Sidhu, learned senior counsel for Judgment Debtor is mandatory in terms of Order 21 Rule 11 (2) Code of Civil Procedure. It reads like this:-

" (2 ). Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule (1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to the acquainted with. the facts of the case and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely:- (a) the number of the suit; (b) the name of the parties; (c) the date of the decree; (d) whether any appeal has been preferred TO from the decree. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

( 3 ) DR. Sidhu has also relied upon provisions of order VI Rule 15 pertaining to the verification of pleadings on the premise that the execution petition comes within the definition and ambit of pleadings. The same reads as under:-

15. (1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case. (2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. (3) The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the main execution application does not carry the verification part at its foot though it is accompanied with an affidavit carrying verification at its foot which is to the following effect :-

THAT the accompanying Application has been drafted by our counsel under my instructions, read over to me and understood by me and the contents of the same are true and correct to my knowledge as derived from the records and may be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit and are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. "

( 5 ) THE main thrust of the contention of Dr. Sidhu is that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 11 (2) are mandatory in nature and not directory and if the execution application does not carry the verification at its foot, the said application suffers from an inexcuseable illegality and cannot be acted upon though it may not be dismissed at the very outset for this reason alone but the applicant in the interest of justice may be given an opportunity to cure the illegality by way of amending the application.

( 6 ) APART from aforesaid two rules, other significant rules resorted by Dr. Sidhu are Rules 17 (1) (1a), (2) (3) and (4) which are as follows :-

"17 (1 ). On receiving an application for the execution of a decree as provided by rule 11, sub-rule (2), the Court shall ascertain whether such of the requirements of rules 11 to 14 as may be applicable to the case have been complied with; and if they have not been complied with, the defect to be remedied then and there or within a time to be fixed by it. (1 (A ). If the defect is not so remedied, the Court shall reject the application" : provided that where, in the opinion of the Court, there is some inaccuracy as to the amount REFERRED TO to in clauses (g) and (h) of sub-rule (2) of rule 11, the Court, shall. Instead of rejecting the application, decide provisionally (without prejudice to the right of the parties to have the amount finally decided in the course of the proceedings) the amount and make an order for the execution of the decree for the amount so provisionally decided.) (2 ). Where an application is ame