BACHHOO LAL Vs. IMAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The decree-holder, in execution of his decree, put in an application on the last date of limitation signed and verified not by himself, but by the pleader who conducted the casein which the execution proceedings arose. The learned Judge before whom the application was submitted on 4th May 1933 postponed the hearing of the case to 24th June 1933 when he was succeeded by another Judge. The decree-holder had in the meantime signed and verified the application himself on 19th June 1933 and the learned Judge postponed for consideration the question whether the application was to be treated as within time. He then decided on 7th July 1933 that the application could not be signed by the pleader as obviously he had no powers to do so. The application was accordingly rejected as time-barred. The applicant has applied in revision and no appearance has been entered on behalf of the non-applicant to whom a notice was issued. The matter is governed by Rule 11(2),Order 21, Civil P.C., which lays down: Every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.

(2.) IT has been held in Barkat Sajjad v. Udit Narain Singh (1904) 26 All 154 that a person who holds a general power of attorney of the decree-holder is a person competent to verify an application for execution. A fortiori it must, in my opinion, be held that the pleader who represented the client in the case, out of which the execution proceedings arise, must also be held to be a person who is acquainted with the facts of the case. Were he not acquainted with the facts, it would have been impossible for him to have represented the client in a case which ended in the applicant's favour. In my opinion the application in execution signed and verified by such a pleader is a compliance with Rule 11(2), Order 21. This view has also been taken in the Bombay High Court in an unreported decision--Hassan Saheb v. Ramachandra Appaya Shanbhog 1929 Bom 196. The order dismissing the application as time-barred is accordingly set aside. The application must be admitted and the execution will proceed according to law. Pleader's fee Rs. 15.