KRISHNA PANICKER Vs. KUNCHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The assignee decree holder in O. S. No. 923 of 1108 on the file of the Perumbavoor District Munsiffs Court has preferred this appeal against the order of the execution court dated 9-12-1123 that the execution application filed by him on 30-12-1121 was barred by the 12 pears' rule enacted in S.48 of the Civil Procedure Code (S.41 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Travancore) since repealed). The Division Bench before which the appeal first came up for hearing referred it for disposal by a Full Bench as it raised some nice questions relating to the law of execution. Before the reference, and as a preliminary thereto, certain findings were called for from the execution court and the order of reference was made after the findings were received in this Court.

(2.) The facts so far as they are relevant for the purpose of the appeal are as follows:-

(3.) The next execution petition in the case was made on 24-10-1121 before the Parur Court and that was by the assignee decree holder, the present appellant. The original decree holder expressly agreed to the recognition of the transfer and the execution asked for being allowed in favour of the appellant. When the petition was taken up for ordering notice to the judgment debtor it was thought that the decree was attached in execution of two decrees and the Court therefore ordered notices to be issued to the decree holders in those cases as well. The appellant tried to satisfy the court that neither of those attachments did proceed in execution of any decree obtained against the decree holder but that both the attachments were in relation to decrees passed against the judgment debtor. The court was however not satisfied about that position and passed a further order on 9-12-1121 which ran thus: "Issue Notice to the attaching decree holders also, returnable on 14-1-1122. Pay deficit process. To 15-12-1121. The appellant did not comply with the order and on the appointed day the court "struck off" the execution application.