The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for execution must comply with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 11, and that the provisions of Section 48(2), Civil P.C., Section 14, and Section 15, Limitation Act, must be interpreted in accordance with their specific requirements.

Bose, J—The question here is whether the respondent's application for execution dated 9-1-1948 is in time. This depends upon the validity of the previous application dated 18-1-1984. The respondent's contention is that the application of 9.1-1943 is not a fresh application but is one seeking revival of the application of 18-1.1984,, which, according to the respondent, is still alive. It will be necessary to trace the history of these executions from the outset. The decree was passed on 23-12-1926 in favour of the respondent's father against Balkrishna and Sadashecu with whom we are no longer concerned.

2. The first application made in the execution Court (the second Sub-Judge, Second Class, Wardha) was dated 1-2-1927. All it asked was that:

Defendants are at Warud District Yeotmal...therefore certificate may be sent to the Court at Yeotmal for (illegible) immovable property.

It set out no details of property. It asked for no attachment, nor did it suggest any mode of execution. The certificate was sent to Yeotmal on 23-2-1927 and the Wardha Court wrote in its order sheet: ''Struck off by transfer.

3. After this the judgment-debtor Balkrishna died sometime in November 1928 and the decree-holders applied on 16-8.1929 to have his widow Indirabai substituted. This was done on 5 7-1929; All this occurred in the Wardha Court. The certificate was recalled from Yeotmal. It was corrected, and was sent back to Yeotmal on 6-7-1929. No further steps were taken in Yeotmal and so the Yeotmal Court returned the certificate to the Court at Wardha on 21-3-1930.

In the meanwhile the judgment, debtor Indirabai, who had been substituted in place of the original judgment-debtor Balkrishna, died. An application was made in the Wardha Court on 17-4-1930 to bring on record her legal representative, another Indirabai (wife of one Vinayak-rao). This is the Indirabai we are concerned with here. She is respondent 1 to this appeal. This application was allowed and the substitution was made on 29-8-1930.

4. On the same day, 17-4-1980, and in the-same application, the decree-holders asked, as before, that the certificate be sent to, Yeotmal. This part of the application was dismissed for default on 26-9.1930.

5. Thereafter, another application was made on 14-10-1980 with the same prayer that it be sent to Yeotmal. This time the application added:

Immovable property in the Yeotmal district belonging to the defendant is to be attached and hence certificate may be prepared and sent to...Yeotmal.

But no list of property was set out. The certificate was sent on 25-10-1930.

6. After this, on 21-2 1981, the decree holders again applied to have the present Indirabai (wife of Vinayakrao) substituted in place of the deceased Indieabai and asked that the certificate be recalled from the Yeotmal Court. This was done but only to discover on 8-4-1931 that the substitution had already been effected. Accord. ingly the certificate was returned to Yeotmal on the same date, 8-4-1931.

After this, Shankerlal, one of the decree-holders died and an application for substitution was made in the Wardha Court on 17-8-1931. The substitution was effected on 24-9-1931. The Civil Court registers were corrected and intimation was sent to the Yeotmal Court on the same date.

7. On 3-11-1933 the Yeotmal Court returned the certificate to Wardha as barred by time.

Then comes the application with which we are concerned. It was made in the Wardha Court on 18-1-1934. It set out the various deaths and the steps taken for substitution and concluded:

Therefore an order to call the certificate and send it alter amending it may be passed.

The Wardha Court granted the prayer so far as it asked for the certificate to be sent to Yeotmal, and on 20-4-1930 directed that it be sent there. (It will be recalled that the previous certificate had been returned on 3-11-1933 and so on the date of this application there was no certificate in Yeotmal).

8. On 23-7-1935 one of the decree-holders, Prayagdas, attained majority