Lower Court was competent to pass order impugned.

1. There is no merit in this revision petition. The first respondent filed the suit O.S.No.87 of 1968 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore, and obtained a decree on 6.8.1969 against the petitioner and the second respondent. That was challenged in Appeal and it was confirmed on 16.11.1970 by the dismissal of the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit O.S.No.194 of 1972 for setting aside the decree and for restraining the decree-holder from executing the decree. Injunction was granted during the pendency of the suit stopping execution. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed against it in A.S.No.34 of 1975 which was dismissed on 30.8.1978. The matter was brought to this Court in S.A.No.531 of 1979 which was dismissed on 30.10.1983. Thus, the decree holder was not in a position to execute the decree from 6.8.1969 to 30.10.1985.

2. Apart from that, the petitioner claimed benefits of the Debt Relief Acts 4 of 1938, 10 of 1975 and 15 of 1976. She got also an order of stay of execution proceedings from 19.11.1974 onwards. The moratorium was in force for 4 years and 9 days. If that period is added to the period of 12 years normally allowed for execution the last date for filing the execution petition was 16.11.1986.

3. The decree-holder filed the present execution petition on 8.7.1986. He brought some of the properties which were attached during the pendency of the suit to sale. The sales were held on 16.4.1987 and 22.2.1988. Applications were filed by the petitioner for setting aside the sales on several grounds. One of the grounds was that the execution petition was barred by limitation. By order dated 17.8.1990 the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, set aside the sales on the ground that there was no subsisting attachment on the dates of sales. He took the view that the attachment was affected during the pendency of the suit and it came to an end when a prior execution petition was dismissed’ because of the order of injunction in O.S.No.194 of 1972. However, the Subordinate Judge negatived the plea of the petitioner that the execution proceeding was barred by limitation. He wrote a detailed order holding that the execution petition was in time. He also held that the properties were liable to attachment.

4. After the setting aside of the sales, the decree-holder filed a memo on 15.10.1990 for amending the execution petition by including a prayer for attachment of the properties set out therein. The amendment was granted. It is against the said order, the present revision has been filed.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the execution petition is itself barred by limitation. That contention is not available to the petitioner in view of the order dated 17.8.1990 in E.A.Nos.164 of 1987 and 220 of 1988 to which I have already made a reference. Even apart from that order, it is clear from the facts stated above that the execution is in time and the plea of Limitation is without any substance.

6. It is next contended that in any event when the memo was filed for amendment of the execution petition, it was very much out of time and it is as if a new relief is sought in the execution proceeding which is not available to the decree holder. There is no substance in this contention. So long as the execution petition is pending and it has been filed within time, it is open to the decree-holder to have the process of execution carried out by attaching the properties of the judgment debtor. There is no separate period of limitation for a prayer for attachment. If the execution petition is within the period of limitation, any prayer for enabling the court to carry out the execution and realise the fruits of the decree is not subject to any period of limitation. Such a prayer can be made so long as the execution petition is pending.

7. Even otherwise, an execution petition can certainly be amended even if the relief sought is barred by limitation. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D.Seshaiah