PHOOLCHAND Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of execution proceedings and the question for determination is whether an application given by the decree -holder in a pending execution for the arrest of the judgment -debtor after 12 years is a fresh application within the meaning of Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure or not?

(2.) THE facts out of which this appeal arises are that the decree was passed on 3 -8 -1938. The decree -holder filed his first execution on 11 -3 -1941 but it was dismissed on 14 -7 -1941. Thereafter the present execution, No. 243 of 1949 was filed and in the course of the execution proceedings the decreeholder obtained some money by the sale of a house on 27 -3 -1951.

(3.) THE whole case turns upon the interpretation of the phrase "fresh application" occurring in the above passage. It seems that in the Code 1882, the expression used in the corresponding Section 230 was 'subsequent application.' This gave rise to some judicial conflict and therefore in the later Code, namely the present Code of Civil Procedure, the phrase 'Fresh application' was substituted for subsequent. application'.