The court has power to amend an execution petition by addition of fresh properties to the list of properties appended to the original execution petition provided the petition for amendment is filed before the expiry of the period of the 12-year limitation prescribed by Section 48, C. P. C.

MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application in revision has been filed by the decree-holder against an order of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Cuttack, dated 8-10-1953, wising the decreeholder's prayer to amend the prosecution petition by including certain properties in the list of properties originally appended to the execution petition. The decree in question was passed in Money Suit No. 41 of 1939 on 11-11-40, and the application for amendment was presented on the last day of the period of 12 years prescribed by Section 48, C. P. C. The main ground on which the application was resisted by the judgment-debtors was that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. Their contention was that Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. provides for an amendment of the execution petition when the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21 are not complied with. In other words they contended that Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. deals with formal amendments, and does not empower the Court to amend the execution petition on any substantial point, as for example by substituting new properties sought to be attached and sold in execution. Order 21, Rule 11 prescribes the details which are to be furnished by the decree-holder in an application for execution of a decree. Clause (j) of Sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of Order 21 requires the decree-holder to state

"the rriode in which the assistance. . . . . is required, whether (i) by the delivery of any property specifically decreed; (ii) by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property; (iii) by the arrest and detention in prison of any person; (iv) by the appointment of a receiver; (v) otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require. "

Order 21, Rule 12 requires that

"where an application is made for the attachment of any movable property belonging to a judgment-debtor, but not in his possession, the decree-holder shall annex to the application an inventory of the property to be attached, containing a reasonably accurate description of the same. "

Rule 13 of Order 21 provides that:

"where an application is made for the attachment of any immovable property belonging to a judgment-debtor, it shall contain at the foot. (a) a description of such property sufficient to identify the same and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record of settlement or survey, a specification of such boundaries or numbers; and (b) a specification of the judgment-debtor's share or interest in such property to the best of the belief of the applicant, and so far as he has been able to ascertain the same. "

Order 21, Rule 14 authorises the Court to call upon the decree-holder to supply certified extracts from the registers of the Collectorate showing the names of proprietors of any land which is sought to be attached in execution of the decree. The judgment-debtors contend that if there be any de- fect in compliance with the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21 in presenting the application for execution of a decree, the decree-holder may, with the permission of the Court, amend the execution petition to remove such formal defects, but it does not entitle the decree-holder to amend the execution petition by substituting new properties to be attached and sold in execution of the decree.

( 2 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge has given effect to this objection, as in his opinion the application filed by the decree-holder was not for a formal amendment which could be allowed under Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. and it was, according to him, not a fit case in which it was necessary for the Court to exercise the general powers to allow amendments to remedy defects, the application having been filed on the last day of the period of 12 years from the date of the decree, and it not having been presented in the form of a fresh application for execution of the decree.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the view taken by the le