The court emphasized the importance of preventing execution proceedings from being kept pending indefinitely and requiring sufficient diligence on the part of the decree-holders, as provided by Section 48, Civil P.C.

1. This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 52 of 1909 on the file of the Temporary Subordinate Court of Gantur against an order of that Court dismissing Ms application for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of immovable properties of the judgment-debtors; The material facts of the case are as follows. The decree in the suit was passed on 27th June 1910. The appellant who had already filed two execution applications which had been disposed of filed execution petition No. 1 of 1921 on 23rd December 1920 for the execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the moveable properties of the judgment-debtors. The attachment was effected. Thereupon a claim was preferred to the attached properties by certain third parties. The claim was disallowed and thereafter the claimants brought a regular suit to establish their right to the attached properties. In that suit an injunction was issued directing stay of sale of the attached properties pending the disposal of that suit. The injunction was issued on 29th July 1921, and remained in force till 20th September 1923 when the dissolution of the injunction was communicated to the Court which passed the decree. On 14th March 1924 the decree-holder applied for amendment of the Execution Petition No. 1 of 1921 by adding a prayer for the attachment and sale of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtors. The Subordinate Judge passed an ex-parte order allowing the amendment and directing attachment of the judgment-debtors immovable properties and the attachment was effected on 15th April 1924. On 24th April 1924 the judgment-debtors objected to the attachment of the immovable properties on the ground that the amendment of the execution petition which was allowed ex parte should not have been made. They contended that on the day when the amendment of the execution petition was applied for more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of the decree and that a fresh application for the execution of the decree would be barred under Section 48, Civil P.C., and that the decree holder applied for the amendment of his execution petition with a view to evade the bar of limitation under S. 48, and that his application should not therefore have been allowed. They further contended that his application for attachment of immovable properties cannot be treated as continuation of the pending application which related to moveable properties only. The learned Subordinate Judge has upheld their objections and dismissed the execution petition. In his judgment he says that the order allowing the amendment is ultra vires, as the application for attaching immovable properties could not be regarded as continuation of the pending application which related to execution against the judgment-debtors moveables. He has held also that as on the date of the petition for amendment a fresh application for execution of the decree would be barred both under Article 182, Lim. Act and Section 48, Civil P.C., the amendment should not have been allowed as it would be depriving the defendants of the benefit of pleading limitation.

2. This appeal is filed against that order. It is contended before us that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the order allowing the amendment was ultra vires, and that he was also wrong in holding that on the date of the application for amendment a fresh application for execution of the decree would be barred either under. Article 182, Lim. Act or Section 48, Civil P.C., and that in the circumstances of the case the amendment ought to have been allowed. Section 48, Civil P.C., applies to a fresh application for execution of the decree which is put in after the expiration of 12 years from the date of the decree. The section does not apply if the previous application No. 1 of 1921 should be treated as rightly amended while it was pending though the amendment was ordered after the expiry of the 12 years. But if the amendment cannot be allowed and the appl