HASAN HASSAN SAHEB Vs. RAMCHANDRA APPAYA SHANBHOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the application for execution is not in time because the immediately preceding one on which it depends to come within limitation was not made in accordance with law.

(2.) The decree under execution was passed on January 7, 1922, and the first application for execution was presented on January 7, 1925, that is, exactly on the last day of the period within which it would be within limitation. The present "darkhast" was filed on October 19, 1926, and it was contended that it was in time, because it had been made within time of the previous one.

(3.) As against this, the other side has contended that the previous application for execution had not been made in accordance with law, on two grounds, one being that a copy of the decree and an inventory of the property had not been annexed to it: and the second that it had not been duly signed and verified by the decree-holder as required by Order XXI, Rule 11 (2), of the Code, As to the first of these objections we agree with the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge and hold that it is untenable. Coming to the second, the application in question was actually signed and verified by Mr. Sawkar, who was the decree-holder's pleader in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge's view was that the darkhast proceedings being original proceedings the application has to be signed by the decree-holder, though it ia not necessary for his pleader to file a fresh vakalat when presenting it in Court and that as this one was not eo signed by an authorised person, the application was not in accordance with law.