( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed on behalf of the decree-holders against the order of the learned Single Judge by which he allowed two execution appsals pending in this Court.

( 2 ) IN the year 1929, one Mir Muzaffar Husain had borrowed some money on the basis of a promissory note. A suit for the recovery of the money was filed and a decree obtained on 17-11-1931 for a sum of Rs. 765/4/- plus costs and interest. On 21-1-1932 Mir Muzaffar Husain died leaving 12 persens as heirs and legal representatives. In August 1932, the decree-holders filed an application for execution and for bringing the names of the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor on the record. This application was granted but ultimately the execution application was not proceeded with and it was consigned to the record room. This order is dated 22-12-1932. On 13-7-1935 a second application for execution was filed but as the judgment-debtors were agriculturists, this application also could not be procesded with and was consigned to the record room. A third application filed on 13-7-1938 met with the same fate on the same ground and the papers were consigned to the record room on 11-2-1939. On 8-5-1941 a fourth application for execution was filed and this time a prayer was made for the attachment and sale of a house No. 86. There was, however, a litigation pending in respect of this house and the execution proceedings remained stayed till the decision of that suit. The suit was decided in 1943, and on 12-7-1943 the decree-holders filed an application for amendment of the execution application by excluding a portion of the property.

( 3 ) OBJECTIONS were filed on behalf of the legal representatives to the application for execution dated 8-5-1941, and the application for amendment dated 12-7-1943, and the two objections were disposed of by separate orders of the trial Court and by the lower appellate Court. It is against those orders that execution of decree appeals were filed in this Court which were allowed by the learned single Judge.

( 4 ) IN the objections taken on behalf of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtors various pleas were raised, but it is not necessary for us to go into them as only one plea teas survived and remains to be decided and that is whether the second application for execution was defective inasmuch as the inventory of the property sought to be attached was not furnished under Order 21, Rule 12, Civil P. C. It is admitted that if that application was defective, then the third application and the fourth application would be barred by time.

( 5 ) ORDER 21, Rule 11, Civil P. C. sets out what an application for execution should contain. It is not contended that any provision of Order 21, Rule 11 was not complied with. The arguments in the lower Courts and in this Court were confined to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 12, Civil P. C. Those provisions are as follows:

"where an application is made for the attachment of any moveable 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. " The objections were decided by the trial Court and by the lower appellate Court in favour of the decree-holders. It is not necessary for us to set out the grounds on which the two Courts decided that matter. On appeal the learned single Judge of this Court took the view in deciding this objection in favour of the legal representatives that the word "judgment-debtor" in Order 21, Rule 12 means the original judgment-debtor and not his legal representatives. So that if the judgment-debtor is dead and the property is in the possession of his legal representatives, the decree-holder must furnish an inventory of the property to be attached as required by the above rule and if he has not done so, then the application for execution is defective and not in accordance w