VEMURI PITCHAYYA Vs. ANKINEEDU BAHADUR ZEMINDAR GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the suit is one of a Small Cause nature and the claim is valued at Rs. 388 and odd, no second appeal lies even in the matter of execution [vide Mavula Ammal V/s. Mavula Maracoir 30 M. 212 : 17 M.L.J. 376].

(2.) We are asked to treat the appeal a as revision petition and to revise the order which directs execution to proceed against the appellant's immoveable properties on the ground that when the execution application was presented, no schedule of immoveable property belonging to the judgment-debtor was attached to it as prescribed by Order XXI, Rule 13, and that by the time this omission was supplied, 12 years had expired from.the date, of, the decree and execution had become barred under Section 48, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) Order XXI, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, declares that, on receiving an application for execution, the Court shall ascertain whether the requirements of Rule 13 among others have been complied with and if they have not been complied with may either reject the application or fix a, time for the defect to be Remedied. Clause 2 states that in an application is so amended it shall be deemed to be an application in accordance with law and to have been presented on the date when it was first presented.