steps to issue a process. Guru Dass Datt v. W. C. Roy. S. W. R., XIII. 83.

(1) A judgment-creditor has uncontrolled option whether he will proceed against person or property. Kisto Kant Bural v. Nistarinee Debi, S. W. R, VIII. 263. (m) Under the old law it was always

a delicate question what act on the part of a judgment-creditor amounted to a bona fide application to keep a decree alive. It is useless reproducing those rulings, as a judgment-crediter now has to show that he has used due diligence to procure complete satisfaction, a limit to which the old Code never drove him.

(n) Where certain execution proceedings had been struck off the file, and the decree-holder applied that they might be restored, his petition containing not one of the particulars set forth in sec. 235, it was held that his application was not an application to execute the decree within the meaning of the Code. Ramdhun Roy and others v. Khajah Abdool Gunnee and others, S. W. R., IX. 390. Applications and proceedings for enforcing a decree (if pursued with due diligence by one of several joint creditors ED.) are taken for the benefit of all. Roy Preeonath Chaudhri v. P. R. Chaudhri, S. W. R., VIII 100.

If a person is to be concluded by the contention that his application to execute is not bona fide, he should be allowed to explain all his acts Sitanath Mundul v. A. O. Roy, S. W. R., XV. 5.

The omission of a decree-holder to carry on execution proceedings pending an application for re-hearing is no evidence of want of bonu fides Titooram Bose v. T. C. Ghose. 8. W. R., XV. 127.

The omission to re-issue processes required by law after an execution case has been struck off need

not always be considered a material irregularity in a case. Bishen Dyal Singh v Kreemutty Khu deemun, S. W. R. 1864 p.359. In executing a decree of twelve years' standing, Court may presume that notice has been regu larly served unless the party alleging irregularity can produce evidence to the contrary. Kasee Kant Talukdar v. Gopal Kisto Maitro. S. W. R., 1864, 314.

Where a contest is raised between a decree-holder and a judgmentdebtor as to service of notice, execution proceedings cannot be carried on further till the question is decided, and limitation in respect to future proceedings must run from the date of such decision. Sarup Chandar Roy v. G. C. Dhar, S. W. R., XIV. 477,

The proceedings of a decree-holder to get full relief, on being referred to a civil suit, keep the decree alive. Ralha Gobind Shaha v. B. C. Chaudhri, S W. R., XV. 207. Where a Judge finds that an appli

cation for execution is within time, and there is no appeal from his finding, his successor is not justified in going behind his order. An application for execution cannot be thrown out summarily as barred by limitation, because the decree-holder has failed to find any of his judgment-debtor's property, or been baffled in his endeavours to satisfy his decree. Maharajah Dheraj M. C. Bahadur v. Moorleedhur Ghose, S.W. R.,XV.67. Until the order is passed confirming a sale in execution, the decree-holder must be considered to be execating his decree, and limitation begins to run against him only from the date of such order. Brogungona Dasi v. S. M. Dasi, S. W. R., XV. 51.

An application for execution of decree, if in due form, is a proceeding to keep the decree in force; it is not necessary for the decree

holder to go on to take further proceedings which may be fruitless. Lachman Singh v. Narain, N.-W. P. 1870, 185. Although by reason of the limitation law process of execution may be barred, the decree is not altogether void. Its effect in ascertaining the rights of the parties is unaffected by any of the provisions of the limitation law. Ram Jus Rae v. Ram Narain, N.-W. P. 1870, 382.

A Court, when called upon to execute a decree, may enquire whether at any time three years of inaction on the part of the decreeholder has elapsed, so as to bar execution. Khuda Bakhsh v. H. Ram. N.-W. P. 1870, 399. Until an order disposing of an application for execution has been passed, the proceeding is to be deemed subsisting. Chotay Lal v. Ram Dyal. N.-W. P. 1870, 402. When the High Court passes a decree on appeal from a Mufassil Court, the Court which has to execute the decree of the High Court is governed by the rules which govern the execution of its own decrees, An appeal prosecuted to a decree is a proceeding to enforce a decree. Also held there was such a proceding where, on the judgmentdebtor seeking to obtain leave from the High Court to appeal to the Privy Council, the executioncreditor intervened.

The ruling in Chaudhri Wahid Alli

v. Mullick Inayet Alli that, whether the decree of the lower Court is reversed, or modified, or affirmed. The decree passed by the apellate Court is the final decree in the suit, and as such, the only decree which is capable of being enforced by execution, not dissented from, except that it was suggested that in all cases it may be expedient expressly to embody in a decree of affirmance so much of

the decree below as it is intended to affirm, and thus avoid the necessity of a reference to the superseded decree. Kistokinker Chose Roy v. Bunodacaunt Singh Roy. B. L. R., X. 101.

This does not apply to decrees of the Privy Council. They are to be executed subject to such conditions and limitation as the Privy Council may direct under 3 and 4 Wm. IV. cap. 41, sec. 35. It is not competent to the Indian Legislature to fix any limitation, as it would be an interference with the Queen's prerogative. Sec. 2 and 3, Wm. IV cap. 85, sec. 43. Anundy Mayee Dassee v. Poornoo Chunder Roy Wm. Rep II. 202. (0) Applications for execution made

one day beyond three years from the date of the decree are not within time, even though the previous day be Sunday. Khodie Lall v. Biswassoo Koer S. W. R., XIII. 122. See. also App. Lim. Act. (p) Where possession is given to one of two joint holders of a decree, it must be held to be given to both. Har Gobind Dass v. B. P. Dass. S. W. R, XV. 112.

The joint nature of an ijmali decree

cannot be altered by a subsequent arrangement among the parties. Aodh Behari Lal v. B, M. Lal. S. W. R., XIII. 128.

A joint decree-holder cannot apply for partial execution of a joint decree, nor can several joint decreeholders make separate applications for execution of decree in respect of their several shares Bal Kishen v. Muhammad Tajm Ali, N. W. P. 1872, 90.

Nor can any one of such decree-holders be bound by the act of another who has compromised with the judgment-debtor and agreed to receive payment by instalments. Balgobind v. Bhowanidin Sahu Agra R., I. Mis. 16.

Two joint decree-holders, each interested in an eight-anna share in a

money decree, issued joint execution, and one of them, after the death of the other, received the whole amount due under the deoree. This was held to be only satisfaction in respect to half of the decree, and the representatives of the deceased were entitled to issue execution for the remaining half. Mohima Chandra Rai v. P. M. Chaudhri, B. L. R., II. App. 43. A certain sum was adjudged to five persons as an entire sum to which all of them were jointly entitled, but one moiety to three of them, and the other moiety to the remaining two: It was held that the effect of the adjudication was the same as if two separate and distinct actions had been pronounced, and that no action taken by the decree-holders to whom one moiety had been assigned could keep the decree alive to the benefit of the others. Chooa Sahoo v. Tripoora Dutt. S. W. R., XIII. 244. Executions taken by one decree-holder of several, with due diligence keep the joint decree alive for all. Johirunnissa Khatoon v. A. Khatoon. S. W. R., VI. Mis 59; Nut Lal v. B. Miller, S. W. R., XI. 421; N.-W. P. 1872, 90; S. W. R., XIII. 128. Three persons obtained a joint deTwo of them took out execution, and realized each his own share. The third applied for execution within three years from the time of the last proceedings taken by the other two, but after a lapse of three years from the last proceedings taken jointly by all three. Held that, there was no severance of the decree, and therefore the proceedings taken by the two kept alive the decree. Azizunnissa Khatoon and others v. Shoshibhushon Ghose and others, B. L. R., App. II. 47.

cree.

And where one of several judgmentcreditors takes out execution, the Court should make an order in granting the execution providing

for the distribution among the several decree-holders of the proceeds of execution. Tarasundaree Burmonee v. Behari Lall Roy, B. L. R., I. 28. Where, notwithstanding objection made, applicants persist in seeking execution of decree for their shares only, they cannot be allowed to amend an application, which after coming up to the High Court they find it impossible to maintain. Poornoo Chunder Mookerjee v. S.C. Roy. S. W. R., XII. 241.

The rule of law which forbids application for execution of part of a decree does not bar application for all that remain due upon a decree where the rest has been previously satisfied. Tej Narain Chatterjee v. Ram Tunnoo Mozoomdar, S. W. R., XII. 370.

Any arrangement made by the decree-holders as to their relative shares in the amount of the decree does not alter its character, and bona fide proceedings taken by one of the number to execute the decree would keep alive the rights of all the decree-holders. In the absence of any order in the decree awarding particular sums to each of the decree-holders, one decree-holder cannot be allowed to take out execution of such portion of the decree as he may consider due to himself. Maharanee Inderjeet Koonwar v. Mazum Ali Khan and another, S. W. R., VI. Mis. 76.

Similarly, a splitting of the amount of a decree into shares for the private convenience of the decreeholders, unless the judgmentdebtor was a party to the arrangement, cannot enable him to plead limitation against any of the decree-holders who may take no active steps in enforcing the decree. As far as the debtor is concerned, the decree continues a joint debt, for the whole amount of which he continues liable to all

the judgment creditors. Brijo Soomar Mulick v. N. O. Chatterjee, S. W. R., I. Mis. 2.

A judgment-debtor cannot object to the share which one or more decree-holders may claim. Maha. Sutesh Chunder Rai, v, S. P. M., ib: V. Mis. 58.

A judgment-debtor cannot make a private arrangement with a decreeholder, and urge that the latter exonerated him from payment of any portion of a joint decree. Doorga Monee Dossee v. Doorga Mohan Doss, S. W. R., II. 66. (g) General powers of attorney are not necessary when one of several representatives of a deceased judgment-creditor applies for the execution of a decree; it is sufficient if the applicant is authorized under sec. 35 to act for the other representatives. Amborani Harrivallabhdo v. H. K., Bom. R., II. 109.

A Judge is not prevented from receiving evidence as to the bona fides of an application for execution on the part of the heirs of a judgment-creditor merely because they have not taken out a certificate. Kali Churn Singh v. Ram Sarun. S. W. R, XI. 204. Also, Syud Ekram Hossain v. R. Pirtee

Chandar Bahadur S. W. R., XI. (Mis), 9, R. Gopal Singh Deb v. Gopal Chandar Chukerbutty II.

393.

(r) A. and B. obtained a decree against C. A. obtained an order for execution of his share in the amount of the decree. C. pledged immoveable property as security to A., who caused it to be sold. B. applied to the Court for her share in the sale proceeds. Held that the order for execution ought, in express terms, to have reserved the rights of the other decree-holders to share in the proceeds of the execution. The case was sent back for apportionment of the amount realized amongst all the

decree-holders. Tarasundari Karmani v. Bihari Lal Roy, B. L. R., C. I. 28. (s) A privately executed endorsement on a decree, unregistered and unproved, is no evidence of the transfer of the decree. Ramdhon Rukhit v. Punchanun Chukerbutty, S. W. R., X. 144. When a decree is sold, and the sale is admitted by the decree-holder in Court, the judgment-debtor cannot contest the right of the purchaser to execute it, except on the plea of payment to the original decree-holder. Sunnooburnissa Khanum v. Meher Chund, S. W. R., VII. 313.

In the absence of proof of collusion

between the purchaser and the decree-holder, the decree is binding against the heir in expectancy of the judgment-debtor. Gopaul Chunder Mana v. Gour Monee Dassee and others. S. W. R.. VI. 52.

The sale by a decree-holder of the right to recover possession under one decree, does not affect his right to recover, under another decree, mesne profits collected during the time of the judgmentdebtor's illegal occupancy. Seetul Chunder Shaha v. B. Soonduree Dassee. S. W. R., IV. 12. A decree-holder cannot first sell a decree and then sue out execution upon it. Seetaram Sahoo v. Mo▪ hun Nundee, ib: III. 90,

If a decree-holder sells his decree to another party, and the Court decides that the sale is illegal as not being for valuable consideration, the decision does not extinguish the decree. The rights of the vendee may be extinguished, but not so the rights of the vendor to whom the decree reverts. Radha Bullub Singh Deb v. Bromo Koomaree S. W. R., IV. Mis.

51.

Unless a decree-holder applies to the Court to certify a transfer or