RANAWAT, J.—This is a civil execution first appeal by Jeevraj judgment-debtor from an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore, dated the 1st of September, 1956, dismissing an objection petition filed by the appellant and holding that the execution petition of the decree-holder dated the 10th of July, 1954 was within limitation.

2. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly described as follows: —

3. Tarachand, Kundanmal, sons of Jetha, Kundanmal son of Megha and Chunilal son of Chaina, obtained a decree for an amount of Rs. 13,429/8/- against Jeevraj on the 19th of April, 1949 from the Court of the District Judge. The first execution petition was made by the decree-holders on the 3rd of May, 1949 which was dismissed on the 6th of February, 1954 and the second execution was presented by Tarachand in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jalore on the 10th of July, 1954. An objection petition was filed by the judgment-debtor on the 15th of January, 1956. It was pleaded by him that the execution petition was time-barred and that the decree was therefore not executable. The learned Civil Judge rejected the objection petition of the judgment-debtor and held that the second execution petition was within limitation. The judgment-debtor has come in appeal to this Court. The grounds that were urged on the part of the judgment-debtor in the lower court were (1) that in execution petition dated 3.5.49 the names of the decree-holders were nor described properly inasmuch as instead of describing the names of the four decree-holders, the name of the firm Tara Chand Kundanmal was mentioned in column No. 2, and (2) that the only prayer for execution in column No. 10 of the petition was for ratable distribution and the said prayer was not in accordance with the provision of O. 21, R. 11 C.P.C. and consequently the first execution petition was not a petition in accordance with law and it could not save limitation. The appellant has added one more ground to the two grounds taken up by him in the lower court. It is urged on his behalf that the number of the suit in which the decree was granted was wrongly stated as suit No. 88 of 1948-49 when the correct number was 83 of 1948-49 and not the one mentioned by the decree-holder in the petition.

4. While appeal was pending in this Court, the appellant Jeevraj died and the name of his widow Sunder Bai and his two sons Chandanmal and Balchand were substituted in place of the name of Jeevraj.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has sought support from the decision of the Madras High Court in G.R. Naidu Vs. Yerramsetti Venkataswami Naidu(1) on the point that misdescription of the number of the suit is an illegality and the application for execution cannot be considered to be in accordance with law in a case where the number of the suit in which the decree is granted has been wrongly described. On the point regarding misdescription of the names of the decree-holders the learned counsel of the appellants has not referred to any decision in support of his contention, but he has urged that wrong description of the decree-holders is contrary to the requirements of O. 21, R. 11 C.P.C. and the execution petition should be considered not in accordance with law, because it suffers with the defect of misdescription of the names of the decree-holders. On the last point regarding defect in the description of the mode of execution, the learned counsel of the appellants has referred to the decisions in Balaji Vs. Gopal (2), Arunachellum Chattiar Vs. Haji Sheik Meera (3), and Sital Bakhsh Singh Vs. Jang Bahadur Singh(4). He has contended that it is incumbent on the decree-holder to describe the mode of execution in one or the other of the ways mentioned in O. 21, R. 11 (5)(j) and as ratable distribution is not mentioned as one of the modes for execution of a decree in O. 21, Rule 11(2)(j), the description of ratable distribution as the mode of execution should be regarded as not in accordance with the provisions of law

Click Here to Read the rest of this document