JUDGMENT.- This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Tiruchirapalli, dated 13th February, 1946, in A.S.No. 321 of 1943 filed against the order of the District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, dated 8th July, 1943, in E.P.No. 505 of 1943 in O.S.No. 251 of 1932. The facts are briefly these: One Kanakavallithayarammal sued her step-son, Muthuvenkatarama Chettiar, and his minor son, Bhaskara Chettiar, for maintenance in O.S.No. 251 of 1932, District Munsif’s Court, Tiruchirapalli. The suit was decreed on 29th November, 1932. Both the defendants were directed by the decree to pay, on or before 29th March, 1933, the maintenance accrued due to the plaintiff at Rs. 14 per month from 1st July, 1931, till the date of the decree, and future maintenance to the plaintiff at Rs. 14 per month from the date of the decree during the life of the plaintiff, at the end of each year, and plaintiff’s costs Rs. 85-2-6. The decree-holder, Kanakavallithayarammal, filed E.P.No. 272 of 1934 praying for the recovery of maintenance which had accrued due till 1st January, 1934 and costs of suit and execution. The amount claimed was Rs. 518-13-0. The reliefs claimed in that execution petition were: (1) to attach the arrears of rents of Rs. 30 due at Rs. 15 each, per month from Ponnuswami Pillai and Baluswami Naidu, two tenants, regarding two shops belonging to ‘the judgment-debtors; (2) for collecting the future rents from these two shops every month from them and depositing them regularly into Court with correct accounts, by appointing the petitioner or anybody else, as the Court thought fit, as receiver for that purpose; (3) out of the rents thus attached, or collected by the receiver, the amount claimed in the execution petition to be paid to the petitioner, and for that purpose, accounts of collections to be filed regularly every month by the receiver appointed. The District Munsif ordered the attachment of the arrears of rents payable by Ponnuswami Pillai and Baluswami. The execution petition was filed in January, 1934. On 11th May, 1934, Ponnuswami Pillai appeared in Court and said that he had paid advance rent enough to cover the rent payable till 15th May, 1934, on which date he was quitting the premises. The fact has not now been disputed and Mr. The execution petition was filed in January, 1934. On 11th May, 1934, Ponnuswami Pillai appeared in Court and said that he had paid advance rent enough to cover the rent payable till 15th May, 1934, on which date he was quitting the premises. The fact has not now been disputed and Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar, for the appellants, assures me that Ponnuswami Pillai actually quitted the shop on 15th May, 1934. Baluswami Naidu appeared in Court on 28th June, 1934 and stated that he had been a tenant under the judgment-debtors only till 15th April, 1934, and had paid up his rent in full till then, and that nothing was payable by him,.and that, indeed, the judgment-debtors owed him some money out of the advance of rent paid by him, and that he had attorned after 15th April, 1934, to the knowledge of the judgment-debtors to the mortgagee of the shop, one Muthulakshmi Ammal, from them and executed a registered lease deed in her favour, and so could not be made to pay any rent into Court under this Execution Petition. The District Munsif found the contentions of these two tenants to be too complicated to be gone into in the execution petition. So, he appointed the decree-holder herself as receiver, in E.A.No. 1274 of 1934, a petition filed by the petitioner in that execution petition for the appointment of receiver on 28th July, 1934, and directed her to collect the arrears of rents from the two shops in question filing suits, if necessary, against Ponnuswami Pillai and Baluswami Naidu if they were really liable and to collect the future rents from the premises, from those liable, and deposit the amounts in Court to the credit of the execution petition as prayed for. Curiously enough, he "closed" E.P.No. 272 of 1934 on 28th July, 1934, itself without waiting for the receiver to collect the arrear rents or future rents or to report inability to collect anything, or about the liability of Ponnuswami or Baluswami and the advisability of filing suits against them and passing suitable orders, or asking or allowing the decree-holder to amend the execution petition and pursue other remedies like bringing the properties to sale. Sale had not been asked for in the first instance as the execution petition amount was small and was expected to be easily recovered from the rents. Sale had not been asked for in the first instance as the execution petition amount was small and was expected to be easily recovered from the rents. The decree-holder did not apply for permission to file a suit, and was also not able to collect a pie as rent. She was, it is said, a helpless and ignorant woman. She assigned her rights to the arrears of maintenance till 20th February, 1942, to the present petitioner, finally, in despair. He filed E.P.No. 505 of 1943 for recognising him as the assignee decree-holder; for treating this petition as a continuation of the E.P.No. 272 of 1934, which, he contended, had been improperly closed for statistical purposes; for continuing the old receiver and making her collect the rents or for discharging her and appointing another receiver; and for the sale of all the charged properties to realise the execution petition amount which now amounted to nearly Rs. 1,900 and odd. The District Munsif of Tiruchirapalli held that E.P.No. 272 of 1934 had not been improperly "closed" for statistical or other collateral purposes; that it was properly "closed" after granting or refusing all the reliefs prayed for, and that, therefore, it could not be revived; and that E.P.No. 505 of 1943 should be treated not as a continuation of E.P.No. 272 of 1934, as prayed for by the petitioner, but as an entirely new petition, and only the amount claimable under the limitation law under this execution petition should be claimed. He dismissed the execution petition with costs because the petitioner was persisting in his plea that E.P.No.272 of 1934 had been improperly closed, and it was clear that he would not amend E.P.No. 505 of 1943, treating it as a new execution petition and reducing the amount to the amount claimable on that basis. On appeal, by the present appellant, the District Judge of Tiruchirapalli agreed with the District Munsif that E.P.No. 272 of 1934. had not been shown to have been improperly or irregularly "closed " and that it could not therefore be revived and continued. But he gave the appellant an opportunity to amend E.P. No. 505 of 1943 so as to convert it into a fresh petition claiming the amount claimable on that basis. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against that judgment and decree (in A.S.No. 321 of 1943). But he gave the appellant an opportunity to amend E.P. No. 505 of 1943 so as to convert it into a fresh petition claiming the amount claimable on that basis. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against that judgment and decree (in A.S.No. 321 of 1943). After the filing of the second appeal, the first respondent, Muthuvenkatarama Chettiar, the step-son of Kanakavallithayarammal, was sentenced to death for murder, and hanged. The second respondent, Bhaskara Chettiar who was a minor when the execution petition was filed, became a major even by the time of A.S.No. 321 of 1943. He was ex parte in the appeal. Mr. E.A. Viswanathan presented a "vakalat" for him in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal at first, but did not re-present it when it was returned to him for rectifying certain defects. So, Mr. E.A. Viswanathan does not represent him, and does not want to file a proper vakalat and represent him. There was thus no vakil legally on record, and, as no other vakil appeared for Bhaskara Chettiar, the second respondent was served by substituted service. He has remained absent and has been declared ex parte. The third and fourth respondents are also absent, and ex parte in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The fourth respondent was ex parte even in A.S. No. 321 of 1943. The third respondent had appeared by vakil there, Kanakavallithayarammal is still alive, as admitted by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar, but has no interest in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Hence, only the counsel for the appellant argued. None of the respondents were present in person or by counsel. while yet the reliefs prayed for, or some of them, remain undisposed of, without being covered by final orders either granting or refusing those reliefs, then the petition will continue to be on the file of the Court despite its being “struck off”, “lodged”, “recorded” or “closed”. But he went wrong in considering that all the reliefs prayed for in E.P.No. 272 of 1934 had been disposed of by 28th July, 1934, when the District Munsif appointed the decree-holder as receiver and “closed” the execution petition by a final order granting or refusing them. But he went wrong in considering that all the reliefs prayed for in E.P.No. 272 of 1934 had been disposed of by 28th July, 1934, when the District Munsif appointed the decree-holder as receiver and “closed” the execution petition by a final order granting or refusing them. One of the reliefs prayed for was that a receiver should be appointed to collect the past and future rents of the two shops from Ponnuswami and Baluswami or any others occupying those shops and deposit the same in Court and that the execution petition amount be paid out of those deposits. But the learned District Munsif simply appointed the decree-holder as a receiver and directed her to collect the rents from the lessees of the two shops and pay them into Court (for payment towards the execution petition dues) seeking the Court’s permission to file suits if necessary against Baluswami and Ponnuswami, and closed the execution petition on the very day he appointed the receiver. This closing could only have been for statistical purposes and could not be deemed to be a valid order according to law terminating the execution petition or a final order regarding the reliefs prayed for. The execution petition had asked for the appointment of a receiver to collect the rents and pay the decree-holder’s dues. As held in Hemangini v. Kumode1, in a decree for maintenance charged on immoveable property, a receiver should generally be appointed in suitable cases to realise the execution petition dues. But the execution petition could be terminated validly by the Court (as apart from consent of parties) only by waiting till the receiver had collected enough to pay the amount (here Rs. 518-13-0) claimed and made the reports required (like the desirability of filing suits), as a receiver is an officer of Court. The mere appointment of the decree-holder as a receiver (in which capacity she was an officer of Court) by itself, had not disposed of the relief asked for in E.P.No. 272 of 1934. She did not report whether Ponnuswami or Baluswami deserved to be sued for arrears or do anything else. The mere appointment of the decree-holder as a receiver (in which capacity she was an officer of Court) by itself, had not disposed of the relief asked for in E.P.No. 272 of 1934. She did not report whether Ponnuswami or Baluswami deserved to be sued for arrears or do anything else. In the circumstances, it served no useful purpose at all as the woman could not collect a pie and as Ponnuswami and Baluswami could not evidently be sued as they were not liable and as the tenant who succeeded Ponnuswami paid nothing to the receiver, and the judgment-debtors went on collecting the rents merrily ignoring the helpless receiver. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar urges that no receiver’s account was kept by the District Munsif regarding this execution petition to watch the collections and ensure the satisfaction of the execution petition dues from them. Nor did the Court give any directions to the receiver. It appointed the receiver and closed the execution petition that very moment. The decree-holder gained little by this ephemeral act. It was, in the circumstances, like closing the execution petition after an order to attach and before sale proceedings. The appointment was thus only a pretext to close the execution petition at once. Nor did the decree-holder want the execution petition to be closed; nor was the execution petition dismissed owing to impossibility of collecting anything from the lessees of the shops as, for instance, on the ground that the shops did not belong to the judgment-debtors or had been validly alienated. It is the clear duty of a Court to dispose of an execution petition really, effectively and validly in one of the ways known to law. It should not close it for “statistical purposes” in its anxiety for quick disposal. The law is there to give redress and relief and not for nominal and quick disposals giving no relief or redress. I hold that E.P.No. 272 of 1934 was improperly closed, for statistical or other purposes, and had not been really, effectively and validly terminated by one of the methods known to law, and that it must be deemed to be therefore still pending, and that the appellant is entitled to have it proceeded with, as the assignee-decree-holder, by reminding the Court about it, as he did in E.P. No. 505 of 1943. His execution petition (E.P.No. 505 of 1943) is a composite one It comprises not only a claim to Rs. 518-13-0 claimed in E.P.No. 272 of 1934, and the amount claimable on the basis of treating this execution petition as a fresh execution petition but also a large sum which had become barred by limitation in between the two execution petitions. So, it has to be split up into two execution petitions to be separately proceeded with. In the end, therefore, I set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, in A.S.No. 321 of 1943 and direct the District Munsiff, Tiruchirapalli, to restore E.P.No. 272 of 1934 to file and proceed with it till it is terminated in a way known to law, by either appointing a fresh receiver or by sale of the properties, and to allow the petitioner to amend E.P.No. 505 of 1943, treating it as afresh execution petition and claiming therein only the maintenance amount due from 3rd June, 1939 till 20th February, 1942. The execution petition was filed only on 3rd June, 1942, and, of course, only the maintenance due from 3rd June, 1939, could be claimed therein under the law of limitation. The assignment was on 20th February, 1942 and, of course, the decree-holder could not assign future maintenance. That is how the period of claim in E.P.No. 505 of 1943 has been fixed by me as from 3rd June, 1939 to 20th February, 1942. In the circumstances, I direct all the parties to bear their own costs in A.S.No. 321 of 1943) and here, themselves, but direct the District Munsiff, Tiruchirapalli, to pass suitable orders regarding costs in both the execution petitions when disposing of them afresh. K.S. ----- Appeal allowed.