BIHARI LAL SURI Vs. LAJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise an order passed on 8 -2 -1979 by the Munsiff, Jammu, striking of an execution application as not being in accordance with law. The execution application omitted to mention the mode of execution in column No 10 and suit No. in column No. 1 and wrongly entered the date of the decree as 13 -10 -1973 in place of 6 -3 -1973 in column No. 3. On the ground of these ommission and errors, the trial court has held that the application is not in accordance with law In the prayer clause the petitioner has asked for the ejectment of the judgment debtor from the disputed shop as also for the recovery of the arrear rent of Rs. 52/ - from him. The ommission in clause 10, therefore, loses significance. For, Section 51 of the code of Civil procedure provides various modes of execution one of them being delivery of any property specifically decreed. That is what the prayer cause amounts to the ommission in clause 10 cannot, therefore, be treated as a material irregularity. That is equally true about the other two defects. The decisions reported in AIR 1971 Patna, 398, and AIR 1936 Allahabad, 17 support this view. It has been held therein that the omission to mention the number of suit and the incorrect description of the date of decree would not constitute a fetal defect. In the circumstances, the lower court was not justified -in treating the defects as material defects and striking of the application as not being in accordance with law.

(2.) THE result, therefore, is that the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application is declared to be in accordance with law and the trial court is directed to proceed with the execution in accordance with law.