SUBHAS CHANDRA DEB Vs. SUBHASHINI DEB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals arising from the same set of facts and involving the same point of law. The judgment -debtor is the appellant and the orders dated 7th and 9th March 1955 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Silchar have been appealed against. It appears from the record that the decree -holder Srimati Subhashini Deb obtained a decree against the defendants in original Title Suit No. 18 of 1939 and the decree was dated 1 -9 -41. Several execution cases were filed previously without much success.

(2.) MR . Goswami for the respondent -decree -holders objected to the maintainability of the appeals on the ground that the material order that was passed in this case was on 29 -10 -54 whereby the application with the list of properties was accepted. This order being passed in the presence of the judgment -debtors, Mr. Goswami urged, it should be treated as binding and conclusive between the parties and that the judgment debtor has no right to file the present appeal long after the material order was passed.

(3.) IN case the amendment was allowable or permissible, then of course by virtue of this provision in Sub -rule (2) of Rule 17 the limitation will be saved. Therefore the only question we have to examine is whether the court was acting within its jurisdiction when it allowed the amendment of the original execution petition by filing of an application which gave the list of properties belonging to the judgment -debtors against which the decree -holders wanted to proceed. This application for amendment was of course made after twelve years of the passing of the decree.