A decree-holder cannot seek execution against fresh properties after the expiry of 12 years from the date of the passing of the decree, even if an earlier application filed within time is pending.

1. The decree-holder in O.S. 70 of 1104, on the file of the Parur District Musiff's Court, had brought this second appeal against the concurrent decisions of the District Munsiff and the Additional District Judge of Parur that his prayer to proclaim and sell certain items of immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtors, attached by the court pursuant to a supplementary list filed on 20.11.1951 (4.4.1127), in relation to a pending execution application, was hit by the twelve years' rule enacted by S.48, Civil Procedure Code and therefore inadmissible. The decree under execution is one passed on 24.5.1109. It is a registered decree and it gave two months' time to the judgment-debtors to satisfy the amounts decreed thereunder. After two abortive execution applications made in the case, one on 25.11.1115 and the other on 10.2.1117, the decree-holder filed a third one on 14.4.1121. The present second appeal has arisen out of proceedings claimed to be pursuant to the said third application. Under it the decree-holder sought execution personally against judgment-debtor No. 2 and such of the movable and immovable properties of judgment-debtors 1 and 2 as are mentioned in the lists to be submitted thereafter. The application was duly registered and after issuing notices as required by 0.20. R.22, Civil Procedure Code, on 23.6.1121, the court, among other directions, asked the decree-holder to produce the schedule of properties to be attached. On 10.7.1121 the decree-holder filed the schedule seeking to attach Sy. 476/8 alleged to belong to judgment-debtor No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtor). On the property being attached, the judgment debtor-raised objections to the execution on the ground that as the schedule was filed more than 12 years after the date fixed in the decree for payment of the debt execution was barred under S.48, Civil Procedure Code. The execution court over-ruled the objection and the District Court in A.S. 22 of 1122 and the High Court in S.A. 556 of 1123 upheld the order of the execution court. The High Court held that although the execution application was not accompanied by a schedule of the property to be attached and notwithstanding that defect, the execution court had admitted and registered the application and later allowed the decree-holder to cure the defect, the contention that the execution was barred by the twelve years' rule was unsustainable. When the records went back to the execution court after the disposal of the second appeal, that court directed the decree-holder to file a fresh execution application (vide order dated 28.11.1124). It would appear that besides the plea of limitation the judgment-debtor had raised a question regarding the claim for interest made in the execution application and with respect to it the second appeal succeeded. It was with a view to have an application conforming to that decision that the execution court directed the decree-holder to file a new application. On such amended execution application being filed on the date fixed for it, namely, 20.12.1124, the earlier one was 'struck off' on the self-same date. Thereafter execution proceeded against the property under attachment and when it came up for sale on 26.10.1950 (9.3.1126) the judgment-debtor applied for judgment of the sale and paid Rs. 50/- towards the decree debt (vide C.M.P. 1395 and the order thereon). The property came up for sale on two further occasions, namely 27.11.1950 (12.4.1126) and 4.12.1950 (19.4.1126) and on both those occasions the judgment-debtor applied for adjournment paying as before Rs. 50/- each time (vide C.M.P. Nos. 15778 and 16227 and the orders thereon). Before the property came up for sale for the fourth time 14.12.1950 (29.4.1126) the judgment-debtor's wife preferred a claim stating that the property belonged to her and not to her husband. This was on 11.12.1950 (26.4.1126) and on 27.12.1950 (12.5.1126) the court passed orders allowing the claim