Verification of execution applications must adhere to the Civil Procedure Code; authorization by resolution of the society is not a prerequisite.

1. The appellant in the above Second Appeal is the Kopargaon Big Bagayatdar Vividha Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd., registered under the Maharashtra Co - operative Societies Act, 1960. The Society obtained a decree against judgment - debtors Nos. 1 and 2 - respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Deorao Sakharam Pawar and Shankar Sakharam Pawar, in Regular Suit No. 38 of 1955, on August 31, 1956, for a sum of Rs. 1,683/- and odd Though almost 19 years have passed, the respondents have not cared to pay a single paisa towards the decree. Darkhast Nos. 354 of 1966, 213 of 1960 and 13 of 1964, filed by the Society, yielded nothing. By their application No. 3 of 1967, the decree was got transferred to Shrirampur Court. The decree - holder applied for execution of the decree, on April 28, 1967, in that Court, by sale of the moveable property belonging to the judgment - debtors, and alternatively, for the arrest of the judgment - debtors. The said Regular Darkhast No. 83 of 1967, was signed and verified by S.K. Raskar, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Society. The execution was sought only against Judgment - debtor No. 1, Deoram Sakharam Pawar.

2. In reply to the notice under Order XXI , R.31 of the Civil Procedure Code , Judgment - debtor No. 1 filed a written statement at Exh, 16, raising several contentions; and again filed an additional written statement raising several other contentions. The oral and documentary evidence was led before the learned Civil Judge, Shrirampur. By his judgment and order dated November 6, 1970, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the Darkhast, ordering Judgment - debtor No. 1 to pay the costs on the ground that there was no evidence on the record to show that judgment - debtor No. 1 had committed any act of bad faith, as envisaged in S.51 proviso (a) (ii) of the Civil Procedure Code . The learned Judge also held that there was no evidence worth the name to show that the judgment - debtor No. 1 has, or has had since the date of the decree, the means to pay and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the decretal amount as laid down in proviso (b) of S.51 of the Civil Procedure Code ,

3. The Society carried an appeal against the said decision. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, by his judgment and order dated June 14, 1972, dismissed the appeal, although he reversed the finding of the trial Court with regard to the means and capacity of judgment - debtor No. 1 to pay, because he was of the view that the Darkhast was not maintainable, as it was not signed or verified by the properly authorised person, observing as follows, in para 11 of his judgment:
"The evidence on record clearly shows that the judgment - debtor has considerable land standing on his name. The extracts of the record of rights are produced at Exhs. 45 to 50. There is hardly any evidence on record to show that all of these lands stood in the name of judgment - debtor No. 1 in his capacity as the Manager of the joint family. Moreover, if he has contracted the debt in question as the Manager of the joint Hindu family, for the benefit of the family, the lands standing in his name even as the Manager of the joint family could certainly be said to be affording him a source of income. The decree in question is passed more than 12 years ago and had the judgment - debtor really a mind to pay the amount he could have paid the amount by very easy instalments. The fact that the judgment - debtor did not pay even a farthing so far itself speaks volumes for his attitude towards evasion of the payment of the decretal dues."
The Society has filed the above Second Appeal against the concurrent orders passed by the lower Courts.

4. The finding of the learned Assistant Judge that the judgmen