SUDARSANAM ABBANNA Vs. THE DEITY OF SRI GOPALSWAMI VARA
LAWS(APH)-1955-4-12
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 05,1955

Sudarsanam Abbanna Appellant
VERSUS
The Deity Of Sri Gopalswami Vara Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CHINNAN CHETTIAR V. MANAGER,SIVAGANGA ESTATE [REFERRED TO]
PARAKKAT DEVASWOM V. VENKATACHALLAM VADHYAR [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIYA DESIKA V. RANGASWAMY CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATHA RAO V. NARAYANAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
SHEOGOBIND RAM VS. MTKISHUNBANSI KUER [REFERRED TO]
GULABSINGH S/O. UMRAOSINGH BHIRARAS VS. NATHU S/O. RAMKISANSA AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.)THIS is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Rajarnundry, allowing the application filed by the Respondents to add the legal representatives of the 3rd judgment -debtor in an execution application.
(2.)THE Respondents obtained a decree for mesne profits against the Appellants and Ors. on 10 -9 -1947. The 3rd judgment -debtor died on 4 -9 -1949. On 18 -7 -1950, the decree -holders filed E. P. No. 105 of 1950 for executing the decree. Presumably because they had no knowledge of tire death of the 3rd judgment -debtor, the application was filed against her also. On 5 -12 -50 the decree -holders filed E. A. No. 26/51 for adding the Appellant as the legal representative of the 3rd judgment -debtor and for proceeding with execution. The learned Judge ordered that application. Hence, the appeal.
Mr. Ramakrishna, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that the execution petition filed on 18 -7 -1950 against the 3rd judgment -debtor was not one made in accordance with law, and, therefore, the application filed on 5 -12 -1950, i.e., more than throe years after the date of the decree, is clearly barred by limitation.

(3.)HIS argument would be sound if the execution application in ado on 18 -7 -1950 was a nullity. Order 21, Rule 11., Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the particulars to be given in every execution application. Rule 17 enables the decree -holder to rectify or correct mistakes adieu, if mistakes are not corrected, the application will be dismissed. It follows that if the mistakes are corrected and if the application complies with the provisions of 0rder 21, Rule 11, the application /nasal Bedecked to have been filed validly on the
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.