OM PRAKASH, Vs. SM. TAHERA BEGAM AND OTHERS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the dismissal of the Judgment-debtor's objection to the maintainability of a second application for execution during the pendency of the first application for execution. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and are of opinion that there is no force in this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant refers us to Order 21, Rule 11 (2) Clause (f) which provides that every application for execution of a decree will state whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results. It is contended that the necessity of noting the result of the previous execution application means that so long as one execution application has not been finally disposed of no second execution application can be filed, and that therefore this provision of the Code of Civil Procedure operates as a bar to the presentation of a second execution application during the pendency ox the first. It is further submitted that when the law contemplated simultaneous execution of a decree in several ways it provided for it and reference in this connection is made to Rule 30 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code which is:

(3.) There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure or in any other law which lays down positively that several applications for execution of a decree cannot be filed simultaneously and it appears to us that unless such a right to apply for execution of a decree in any of the modes permissible by law is not definitely restricted such a bar should not be inferred from the requirements of the contents of an application for execution. The bar to a certain legal right should be clearly laid down by statute and is not to be inferred. In a case where it is to be inferred there should be no other conclusion possible except the conclusion that the other provisions necessarily imply that such a bar should come in existence. There is nothing in the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11 (2), Clause (f) to lead to such an inference. In fact it is clear that the requirements of this clause cannot be complied with respect to the result of the previous execution application in case simultaneous applications for the arrest of the judgment-debtor and for the realisation of the decretal amount by attachment of property were made and to which type of applications no objection is raised or suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no exception mentioned in R.11 with reference to the applications which may come under Rule 30 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code It must follow, therefore, that the provisions of Rule 11 (2), Clause (f) do not mean that in case the result of a previous application cannot be noted on account of its not coming to an end the non-mentioning of the result would either make the application bad in law or must lead to the result that the second application must be considered to be barred by law during the pendency of the previous application.