Judgment :- 1. The auction purchaser in O.S. 19/1105 of the District Court of Alleppey is the appellant in this case. In execution of the decree in that case properties belonging to the judgment-debtors were sold in court auction and purchased by the appellant. The 9th defendant put in a petition to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity. The court below allowed the petition and set aside the sale. The appeal is from that order. 2. The reason given by the leaned District Judge for setting aside the sale is that the sale was held in contravention of the terms of the decree. The decree was in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and separate amounts were awarded to the two plaintiffs under the decree. The first plaintiff was awarded Fs. 8222 1/4 and interest and the 2nd plaintiff Fs.1014 3/8 and interest. Both the plaintiffs filed a joint execution petition for the amounts due to them. Though the amounts were separately mentioned in the execution petition, the properties were proclaimed for the consolidated amount and the sale took place for that amount. The learned judge held that the procedure adopted was contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and that therefore the sale was invalid. The learned judge therefore did not go into the other allegations in the petition viz., material irregularity and fraud in publishing and conducting the sale and gross under-valuation. 3. According to the learned District Judge the decree in this case is not a joint decree, and it is only in the case of joint decrees can a joint execution petition be filed under 0.21 R.15 C.P.C. 0.21 R.15 provides that where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may apply for the execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all. That rule only empowers one joint decree-holder to execute the whole decree for the benefit of the other joint-decree¬holders also. That does not mean that when there are more than one decree-holder in a case who are not joint decree-holders they cannot apply for execution of the whole decree by a joint execution petition. That rule only empowers one joint decree-holder to execute the whole decree for the benefit of the other joint-decree¬holders also. That does not mean that when there are more than one decree-holder in a case who are not joint decree-holders they cannot apply for execution of the whole decree by a joint execution petition. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure to show that when separate amounts are awarded under the same decree to more than one decree-holder they are bound to file separate execution petitions for the realisation of the amounts due to them. Although separate amounts are awarded to the different decree-holders there is only one decree in the case. 4. This question came up for consideration in Lal Ratnakar v. Rudra Pratab A.I.R. 1935 Allahabad 402. In that case a decree was passed in favour of three persons awarding them separate costs. They filed a joint execution petition for the separate amounts due to them. It was held that such a petition was maintainable. Bennet, J. observed thus in that case: "Turning to the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code I find under S.2(2): 'decree means the formal expression of an adjudication which so far as regards the court expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in that suit.' There is therefore one decree in each suit and there are not two decrees in one suit. In the present suit there was actually one formal decree drawn up. 0.21 R.10 lays down: "Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the court which passed the decree " that is, for the execution of one decree there should be one application made by the holder. The singular imports the plural and where there are more holders than one of a decree the language implies that the holders of the decree should make an application. It is obviously more convenient for the purposes of attachment and sale that for the execution of a single decree there should be a single application and a single procedure of attachment and a single procedure of sale, otherwise if there was a multiplicity of applications, and attachments and sales there would be considerable confusion." 5. It is obviously more convenient for the purposes of attachment and sale that for the execution of a single decree there should be a single application and a single procedure of attachment and a single procedure of sale, otherwise if there was a multiplicity of applications, and attachments and sales there would be considerable confusion." 5. If two decree-holders under the same decree apply separately for the sale of a property belonging to the judgment-debtor, it will be difficult to conduct the sale unless the property is divided and separate portions sold for the separate amounts. In order to avoid such difficulties it is always better that the property is sold for the whole decree amount. This is what was done in the present case, and we find no reason to hold that the procedure is opposed to any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to certain rulings which lay down that in the case of decrees of this nature the decree-holders cannot be said to be joint decree-holders. If is true that the decree in such a case cannot be said to be one passed jointly in favour of more persons than one and an execution application by one will not enure to the benefit of the others so far as limitation is concerned. But we are not concerned with that question in this case. Here we are only concerned with the question whether when a decree is passed severally in favour of mor persons than one they can file a joint execution petition or whether they are bound to file separate execution petitions. We are of opinion that there is nothing in law to prevent them from filing a join execution petition. 6. The learned District Judge has clearly gone wrong in holding that the decree-holders in this case were not entitled to file a joint execution petition and that the sale held pursuant to that joint execution petition was invalid. We, therefore, set aside the order of the court below and remand the petition to that court for fresh disposal according to law. We make no order as to costs. Remanded.