- (1.)THIS is a civil execution first appeal by Jeevraj judgment-debtor from an order of the senior Civil Judge, Jalore, dated the 1st of September, 1956, dismissing an objection petition filed by the appellant and holding that the execution petition of the decree-holder dated the 10th of July, 1954 was within limitation.
(2.)THE facts leading to this appeal may be briefly described as follows: tarachand, Kundanjnal, sons of Jetha, Kundan-mal son of Megha and chunilal son of Chaina, obtained a decree for an amount of Rs. 13,429/8/-against Jeevraj on tthe 29th of April, 1949 from the Court of the District Judge, Balotra. The first execution petition was made by the decree-holders on the 3rd of May,. 1949 which was dismissed on the 6th of February, 1954 and the second execution petition was presented by tarachand in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jalore on the 10th of July, 1954. An objection petition was filed by the judgment-debtor on the 12th of January, 1956. It, was pleaded by him that the Execution petition was time-barred and that the decree was therefore not executable. The learned Civil Judge rejected the objection petition of the judgment-debtor and held that the second execution petition was within limitation. The judgment-debtor has come in appeal to this Court. The grounds that were urged On the part of the judgment-debtor in the lower court were (1) that in the execution petition dated 3-5-49 the names of the decree-holders were not described properly inasmuch as instead of describing the names Of the four decree-holders, the name of the firm Tara Chand Kundanmal was mentioned in column. No. 2, and (2) that the only prayer for execution in column no. 10 of the petition was for rateable distribution and the said prayer was not in accordance with tne provision of Order 21, Rule 11, C. P. C. and consequently the mrs,, execution peutiun was not a petition in accordance with law and it could not save Limitation. The appellant has added one more ground to the two grounds taken up by him in the lower court. It is urged on his behalf that the number of the suit in which the decree was granted was wrongly stated as suit No. 88 of 1948-49 when the correct number was 83 of 1948-49 and not the one mentioned by the decree-holder in the petition.
(3.)WHILE this appeal was pending in this Court, the appellant Jeevraj died and the name of his widow Sunder Bai and his two sons Chandanmal and Balchand were substituted in place of the name of Jeevraj.
;