SYNDICATE BANK PUTTUR Vs. S HANUMANTHA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents could not be heard as he was not present.

(2.) PETITIONER is the decree-holder in execution case No. 65 of 1991 and the two respondents are the judgment-debtors therein. Undisputedly, petitioner had obtained a money decree on 15-9-1979 in original suit No. 30 of 1978 against respondents. The said decree was put to execution in execution case No. 65 of 1991 against respondents for realisation of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of certain immovable property described therein as belonging to judgment-debtor-1. Subsequently, it was discovered by the petitioner-decree holder that the said immovable property had been transferred by respondent-1 (judgment-debtor-1) in favour of his mother by a registered conveyance deed dated 13-6-1979. Then on 24-7-1992 petitioner made la. No. Iii under order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, civil procedure code before the court below praying for permission to amend the execution petition to substitute the mode of execution thereon as by arrest and detention of respondent instead of by attachment and sale of said property.

(3.) THE learned judge of the executing court has rejected the petitioner's said la. No. Iii by his impugned order on the ground that the same was filed after expiry of 12 years from the date of the decree and that if the same is allowed it would cause prejudice to respondents and alter the nature of the execution petition.