1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings inexecution. The decree in question being a rent-decree was obtained againstcertain persons as shebaits of a certain Thakor on the 28th November 1911. Theapplication for execution was made on the 23rd November 1914. On its face theapplication was one in accordance with law. Later, on objection taken by thejudgment-debtors it was discovered that against the properties specified in thelist furnished under Order XXI, Rule 13, proceedings could not be taken andaccordingly on the 14th January 1915 the decree-holder made an application tothe Court requesting the Court to accept a further list of properties andpraying that execution should proceed by attachment and sale of thoseproperties. It has been held by the first Appellate Court that the applicationhaying been admitted and registered the proposed amendment could not beaccepted and that it would be necessary for the decree-holder to make a freshapplication in execution. Incoming to this conclusion the Court relied upon thedecision of a Full Bench of this Court reported as Asgar Ali v. Troilokya NathGhose 17 C. 63 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 960. We may observe, a further referencehas been made to the case reported as Salimulla Bahadur v. Sainaddi Sarkar 22Ind. Cas. 337 : 18 C.L.J. 538. But the present case may be distinguished fromboth these cases, in that in those two cases the application as originally madewas one not made in accordance with law and that it contained no list ofproperties against which the proceedings wore intended to be taken. In thepresent case, as we have already pointed out, the matter is different. Herethere was a list of properties, the application was one made in accordance withand it was only on the objection taken by the judgment-debtors that it wasdiscovered that against these properties execution could not proceed. We arenot of opinion that in a case such as. this the decree-holder should beconfined to the properties he had originally specified, and we think that itwas open to him to ask the Court to proceed against the properties specified inhis farther and supplementary list. We are further of opinion that that listshould be taken as part of the original application under the provisions ofOrder XXI, Rule 17 (2),or if afresh application were at all necessary that thatapplication should be treated as one made in continuation of the applicationfirst presented on the 23rd November 1914.

2. In this view no question of limitation arises and we,therefore, set aside the order of the first Appellate Court and decree thisappeal with costs. The decree-holder will now be at liberty to proceed inexecution as on his application of the date 23rd November 1914.

3. We assess the hearing fee at three gold mohurs.

.

Gnanendra Kumar Rai Chowdhury vs. Shayama Sunder Jen and Ors. (28.01.1918 - CALHC)