The failure to issue notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure renders the proceedings null and void.

Choudhuri, J—This is a Second Appeal filed by the decree-holders against the appellate order dated 6-8-1946 of the Additional District Judge, Narsimhapur, in execution case arising out of Civil Suit No. 256 of 1927.

2. Dhannalal and his son Mansaram obtained a decree for Rs. 702-14-9 against one Rahamatali on 30-4-1929 in Civil Suit No. 256 of. 1927. The first execution application was filed on 7-7-1933 against Kamarali, Ahmedali and Ramzanali sons of Rahamatali, and Mst. Sultanbi, his widow, as Rahamatali died after the decree was passed. The sons and widow were brought on record as his legal representatives. Tho execution application TO dismissed on 10-3-1934 aa the decree-holders did not wish to. proceed any further then.

3. The decree-holders again started execution proceedings against the judgment-debtors, a second time. The date of filing this execution application is in dispute. According to the judgment-debtors, it was filed on 16-3-1937 i.e. more than three years after the dismissal of the first execution application. According to the decree-holders, the second execution application was filed on 10-3-1937. This application was dismissed on 3-7-1937, as process for attachment of the movables was not paid though there was an order of the Court on 19-3-1937 to issue a warrant of attachment of movables. A third execution application was filed on, 17-6-1940 against these judgment-debtors. It was also dismissed on 16-8-1940 as in fructuous as the decree-holders did not pay process for issuing warrant of attachment of the immovable property. Then a fourth execution Applicant was filed by the decree-holders on 28-4-1947 and it was disposed of on 19-3-1942 as a (sic) - was effected between the decree-holders and the judgment-debtors to the effect that the decretal amount with costs shall be paid Joy instalments at Rs. 5/- per month.

4. Subsequently Kamarali, one of the judgment-debtors raised an objection on 24-6-1944 contending that the second execution application was filed on 16-3-1937 and was barred by time and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution application which was filed on 28-4-1941. It was stated that the judgment-debtors were not noticed and therefore could not raise the objection in the previous application. The decree-holders contended that the first application for execution was struck off on 10-3-1934 after bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Rahamatali on record. The second execution application was filed on 10-3-1937 and not on 16-3-1937 as alleged by the judgment-debtors. The decree-holders stated that forgeries have been committed in altering the date 10-3-1937 to 16-3-1937 wherever they have occurred in the second execution application and subsequent applications.

5. The trial Court held that the second execution application was filed on 16-3-1937 and as such it was barred by time. The trial Court therefore dismissed the execution application filed by the decree-holders on 28-4-1941. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the lower appellate Court. Hence the decree-holders have come up in appeal. One of the decree-holders Dhannalal died during the pendency of the appeal.

6. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the second execution application was filed by the decree-holders on the 10-3-1937 and not on the 16-3-1937 as the altered dated indicate.

7. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that there is no evidence on record to support the concurrent finding that the second execution application was filed on 16-3-1937. It was pointed out that the second execution application was reported to be correct by the clerk on 19-3-1937, & the presiding Judge ordered the attachment of the movables belonging to the judgment-debtors. It was argued that even though the execution of a decree may have been actually barred by time at the date of the application made for its execution, yet as an order for the execution was made by a competent Cour