Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21a. Principle apart, it has been said that there is authority for the view that applications in execution may be amended as and when such amendment is required. Such amendments have, it is said, been liberally allowed in the spirit of the provision embodied in Rule 17 of Order 21. Reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., (S) AIR 1955 SC 376, in which that Court had occasion to refer to Order 21, Rule 11(2). That was a case in which the question directly in issue was the effect of the operation of Order 21, Rule 16 on equitable assignment. In the course of discussion Order 21, Rule 11 was referred to and the contention of the appellant's Counsel that there was failure to comply with the requirements of that rule was noticed. Das, J. (as his Lordship then was) observed that since the application for execution did not specify any of the several modes in which the assistance of the Court was required the application was defective; but the objection. was not given effect to on the ground that it had not been taken earlier and in view of the fact that there was another tabular statement for execution specifying the mode in which the assistance of the Court was required. It was sought to be argued on the basis of this observation that non-compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11 was not viewed seriously by the Supreme Court; consequently failure to file a certified copy of the decree in the present case should not have entailed the consequence of refusal of the appellant's prayer to participate in the assets held by the Court. We are not prepared to read the observations of the Supreme Court in the way suggested by counsel on behalf of the appellant. It was not the subject matter of direct decision of the Supreme Court that non-compliance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 11 was venial. The learned Judge while noticing the objection observed that there were circumstances which might be considered sufficient to condone the failure in that case. We are, therefore, unable to regard these observations as implying that non-compliance with a mandatory rule relating to the production of a certified copy of the decree would not disentitle the appellant to participate in the distribution of the assets.