JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These execution second appeals arise out of the same decree and can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

2. A final decree in a partition suit between Gauri Shankar respondent and Durga Shankar appellant was passed in favour of the former on 1-10-51 granting the following reliefs:—

A Exclusive possession over some house properties.

B. Exclusive possession over some agricultural land.

C. Costs of the suit.

D. Right of worship and of receiving offerings in Charbhuja Temple Pushkar between Asoj Sudi 3 and Asoj Sudi 2 once in four years.

Gauri Shankars first turn of worship after the decree came on Asoj Sudi 3, S. 2009 (22-9-52). This turn was to have come to end on 10-10-53. He filed the first execution application No. 534 of 1953 on 16-7-53, that is before the turn of worship had came to an end. In this execution application he only claimed relief 1) namely the right of worship and receiving offerings. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor who appeared and look time for filing objections. Time was granted to him upto 22.10.53. The turn of worship of Gauri Shankar however came to on end on 10.10.53 and this execution application accordingly became infructuous. On 22-10-53 the decree-holder made a statement that he did not want to proceed with the execution application for the present and the execution application was struck on.

3. Gauri Shanker filed the second execution application ( No. 380/54 re-numbered as No. 38/58) on 31-3-54 for the grant of reliefs A, B and C. He did not claim relief D in this application as his next turn of worship was to commence after more than two years namely on 7-10-56. In column No. 6 of the execution application it was mentioned by him that the decree was being executed for the first time. No mention of the execution application dated 16-7-53 was made. This was obviously because the application dated 16-7-53 was for relief D whereas the application dated 31-3-54 was for reliefs A, B and C. For these reliefs the second execution application dated 31-3-54 was the first execution application.

4. Notice was issued to the judgment-debtor who appeared and raised two objections. One objection was that the execution application was materially defective inasmuch as no mention about the first execution application dated 16-7-53 was made as required under order 21 rule 11(2)(f) C.P.C. The second objection was that as reliefs A, B and C were not claimed in the first execution application dated 16-7-53 the decree-holder had become disentitled to claim them.

5. Both these objections were overruled by the executing court as well as the appellate court. Execution second appeal No. 27 of 1962 has been preferred against the judgment of the appellate court.

6. The third execution application (No. 492 of 1956 re-numberd as No. 143 of 1958) was filed on 20.8.56 for relief D, The next turn of the decree-holder was to commence on 7.10.56. The judgment-debtor filed a number of objections and the turn of the decree-holder passed before they could be disposed of. On 12.9.59 the executing court dismissed the application on the ground that the turn of the decree-holder had passed and he should apply again before his next turn was to commence.

7. The fourth execution application No. 222 of 1960 was filed on 23.9.60 for relief D. In column 6 of the execution application the decree-holder mentioned the two previous execution applications for this relief namely No. 534 of 1953 dated 16.7.53 and No. 492/56 dated 20.8.56. He did not mention the execution application No. 380 of 1954 filed on 31.3.54, obviously because it did not relate to relief D. The judgment-debtor again raised the same two objections namely that the execution application suffered from a material defect inasmuch as one of the execution applications was not mentioned in column No. 6 and the other was that piecemeal execution was not permissible. The executing court uph

Click Here to Read the rest of this document