These are two connected appeals arising from the same set of facts and involving the same point of law. The judgment-debtor is the appellant and the orders dated 7th and 9th March 1955 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Silchar have been appealed against. It appears from the record that the decree-holder Srimati Subhashini Deb ob­tained a decree against the defendants in Original Title Suit No. 18 of 1939 and the decree was dated 1-9-41. Several execution cases were filed previous­ly without much success.

The last execution proceedings were started in the year 1952, and they were separately numbered as separate reliefs were sought in three different cases, but by an order of 24-3-54 they were directed to be amalgamated, which order however, was revi­sed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 24-7-1954. That by itself is not of much importance. What has really been challenged in this case is whether the execution is competent or it is hit by section 48 of the Civil Procedure - which provides inter alia that no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after expiration of twelve years from the date of the decree.

The original application for execution was de­fective in the sense that the particulars of immov­able properties sought to be attached in execution of the decree were not furnished, as was required tinder rule 13, Order 21, Civil Procedure Code.

The requirement of rule 11 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code as pointed out by Mr. Deb for the appellant is that it should be indicated in the appli­cation for execution as to what is the mode in which the assistance of the court is required and one of the items thereof is by the attachment and sale of any property. Here the application for execution was by sale of property, but the description of the property was not given nor any immovable property mentioned as such as was required under rule 13. This defect however, was detected on 3.1-9-54 when objection was taken as to the competence of the execution proceedings.

The learned Subordinate Judge directed by his order of that date that the decree-holders were to take steps for supplying a list of properties which they wanted to proceed against by 2-9-54 and as the list was not supplied on 25-9-54 the learned Subordinate Judge directed that no attachment could be issued till the defect in the execution peti­tions were remedied and the decree-holders were directed to act accordingly and time was extended upto 20-10-54 till the reopening of the court.

On 29-10-54 a verified petition was filed by the decree-holders furnishing the details of the immov­able properties sought to be attached and the learn­ed Subordinate Judge directed that this petition should »be treated as part of the original application for execution and he ordered attachment of the pro­perties as set forth therein fixing 27-11-54. Subse­quently on the sale proclamation being published and served a court sale was ordered for to which the judgment-debtors objected. On 7-3-55 the learned pleader for the judgment-debtors again argued that the application was barred under sec­tion 48, Civil Procedure Code as the applications for amendments were made or the lists of immov­able properties were supplied after lapse of 12 years from the date of the decree.

The learned Subordinate Judge reviewed the position under which the order dated 29-10-54 was passed and he overruled the objections on behalf of the judgment-debtors. The sale was concluded on 9-3-55 whereby the properties described in the application for execution were sold to the highest bidder. Against this final order one of the judg­ment-debtors Subhas Chandra Deb has come up in appeal.

His case has been as already mentioned, that the application for execution was not made in time and the order permitting amendment of the original application for execution by an application of a later date, could not have saved limitation, the application for amendment b