Execution petition remained valid despite missing vakalatnama when the court accepted and acted on it

An execution petition signed and verified by the decree-holders was accepted by the Court and acted upon through notices under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and for attachment of property. The only defect was the omission to file the pleader's vakalatnama at presentation, which was later cured. On these facts, the defect did not render the petition invalid or non est for limitation purposes, so the execution petition was treated as duly filed and not barred by limitation. The objection based on the missing vakalatnama failed, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the execution petition was duly filed and acted upon so as to prevent the claim from being barred by limitation despite the absence of a filed vakalatnama when the petition was presented.

Analysis: The petition of execution was signed and verified by the decree-holders and was accepted by the Court. The Court acted upon it by issuing notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and later issuing further notice regarding attachment of property. The only defect was the omission of the pleader to file a vakalatnama, which was subsequently made good. On these facts, the omission did not render the execution petition invalid or non est for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The execution petition was duly filed on 25 May 1933 and was not barred by limitation. The objection based on the absence of a vakalatnama failed, and the appeal was allowed.

---