AIR 1966 RAJASTHAN 258 ::1966 RajLW 201 ::ILR (1966) 16 Raj 448

Rajasthan High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Jagat Narayan , J

(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.21 R.11(2)(f)— Omission to mention result of previous applications - Not a material defect. Failure to mention the result of the previous applications as required under Order 21 Rule 11(2)(f) is not a material defect so as per se to vitiate the execution application. The object of the provision in Order 21 Rule 11(2)(f) is that the executing court should know whether the execution application is within limitation and to what extent, if any, the decree has already been satisfied. The decree-holder can satisfy the executing court on these points by producing other evidence before the Court even after tiling the @page-Raj259 execution application; and when the court is so satisfied there is a substantial compliance with the rule. (B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.141, O.2 R.2(1), O.21 R.10— Piecemeal execution not barred. There may be separate and successive applications for the execution of a decree in which different reliefs may be claimed. O. 2. R. 2(1) does not apply to execution proceedings because the proceedings contemplated under Section 141 C.P.C. do not include execution proceedings. Piecemeal execution is not barred. In certain cases there may be circumstances from which it can be inferred tha....