Execution application remains valid without simultaneous production of certificate, if the authority is filed during proceedings.

Section 4 of Act VII of 1889 prevents a court from proceeding with execution at the instance of a person claiming entitlement to execute a decree unless a certificate or other like authority is produced, but it does not render the execution application itself invalid when the document is not filed at the time of presentation. The Calcutta HC noted that the certificate may be produced during the pendency of the proceedings, so the absence of simultaneous filing is not, by itself, fatal to the application. On that reasoning, an execution application by the legal representative of a deceased decree-holder remains good in law despite the initial omission.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application to execute a decree made by the legal representative of a deceased decree-holder was invalid merely because no certificate or like authority had been filed along with the application under Section 4 of Act VII of 1889.

Analysis: Section 4 of Act VII of 1889 bars the Court from proceeding on an execution application by a person claiming entitlement to execute a decree unless a certificate or other like authority is produced, but it does not make the initial presentation of the application itself illegal. The certificate may be supplied during the pendency of the proceedings, and the absence of simultaneous production does not by itself invalidate the application.

Conclusion: The application was a good application in law even though the certificate was not filed with it.

---