RAMACHANDRA NAIDU Vs. TIRUPATHI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner sought to save limitation by treating as steps-in-aid of execution two execution petitions in which the decree-holder prayed for the arrest of the judgment-debtors in spite of the fact that the decree to be executed did not make the defendants personally liable. The lower Courts have dealt with the case on the basis that execution petitions asking for a relief which the executing1 Court was not competent to grant, are not in accordance with law." The present is not a case of competence or incompetence. It has been held, in cases where the decree did not give the relief asked for, that an execution petition may yet give a fresh starting point for limitation, e.g., applications to sell properties not liable to be sold and applications against a deceased judgment- debtor. Vide Varadiah T. v. Rajakumara Venkata Perumal 21 Ind. Cas. 782 : (1914) M.W.N. 157 : 14 M.L.T. 530 : 26 M.L.J. 83 and Samia Pillai v. Chockalinga Chettiar 17 M. 76 : 4 M.L.J. 8.

(2.) Any mistake or error in an execution petition will not necessarily render such an application a nullity.

(3.) But the District Munsif was of opinion that the decree-holder s action in the present case was not bona tide. We do not think that this conclusion can be drawn from the applications themselves.