JUDGMENT-Corporation obtained decree for possession on April 5, 1957. The first application for execution was made on April 4, 1959; second on 11, 1960 and the third on January 23, 1963. Then on January 19, 1965, it applied for with drawing first Land, third applications i. e. of April 4, 1959.and January 23, 1963. Notice in application for execution under Order XXI, dated April 1, 1960, was served by substituted service on the judgment-debtors. The judgment-debtors resisted the execution on two grounds. They are(1) The application as made by the Estate Agent and Land Manager and not .by the Commissioner was bad in law; (2) The applications made earlier merged in the last and if so, execution is barred as it is filed more than three years after the decree. The lower Court rejected the contentions. 2 The same points are urged before me. As to the first point it is argued that the power of the Commissioner under section 517.(j)of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 to institute and prosecute any suit. cannot be delegated to any other person since section 68 of the Act provides for delegation of powers vested in him only under section 517 (I ) (a) and &s the application for execution of the decree is signed by the Estate Agent and Land Manager, the application is bad. 3. I have no doubt that the application for execution need not be signed by the Commissioner. In this connection the relevant provisions that fall for consideration are Order XXI, rules 10 and n. So far all relevant, they are: "10. Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the Court which passed the decree or to the officer (if any) appointed in this behalf, or if the decree has been sent under the provisions hereinbefore contained to another Court then to such Court or to the proper officer thereof." "11. Where the holder of a decree desires to execute it, he shall apply to the Court which passed the decree or to the officer (if any) appointed in this behalf, or if the decree has been sent under the provisions hereinbefore contained to another Court then to such Court or to the proper officer thereof." "11. (2) Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule (1)1 every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the ease, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely:-- (a) the number of the suit; (b) the names of the parties; (c) the date of the decree; (d) whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree; . (e) whether any, and (if any) what, payment or other adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree; (f) whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results. (g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed; (h) the amount of the costs (if any) awarded; (i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; arid (j) the mode in which the stratification of the court is required, whether- (i) by the delivery of any property speflifically decreed; (ii) by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property; (iii) by the arrest and detention in prison of any person; (iv) by the appointment of a receive; (v) otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require. 4. Order XXI, rule. 10 does not require that if the decree-holder desires to execute the decree, he personally shall sign the application. It only means that a decree cannot be executed unless there is an application. The method of making the application is provided for by Order XXI, rule 11. It may be that under certain circumstances an oral application could be made. 10 does not require that if the decree-holder desires to execute the decree, he personally shall sign the application. It only means that a decree cannot be executed unless there is an application. The method of making the application is provided for by Order XXI, rule 11. It may be that under certain circumstances an oral application could be made. In other cases, it must be a written application which iS8igned and verified by (1) the applicant 61 (2) by, some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted facts of the case. The "applicant" no doubt means the decree-holder-applicant. But the alternative permits it to be signed by some other person. This evidently does not mean that the application must be necessarily signed by the decree-holder. Any agent or any other person who is acquainted with the facts of the case may sign the same. It is obvious that if the decree-holder has authorised his agent to file the application, the agent can sign the application. 5. 1n this connection I may refer to Order VI, rules 14 and 15 which relate to pleadings. Rule 14 requires the party and his pleader if any to sign the pleading; However, if the party is absent or there is sufficient cause for his being unable to sign the same, the same can be signed by any other person duly authorised to the so. Rule 15 provides verification of the paint by anyone who is proved to the satisfactions of the Court to be acquainted with the facts. I. these two rules a clear distinction is made between signing of the plaint and its verification, and when the act is required to be done by the party, it is specifically provided. This is not so under Order XXI, rules 10 and 11. 6. It was not contended before the lower Court and before me that the Estate-agent and Land Manager is not authorised by the Commissioner to perform the ministerial act of singing the execution application and that his act is unauthorized. 7. Delegation under section 68 of the Act relates to delegation of the discretion vested in the Commissioner, and not to delegation of ministerial acts. The signing and verifying of the decree is a ministerial act and that can be done by anyone authorised by the Commissioner to do so. 7. Delegation under section 68 of the Act relates to delegation of the discretion vested in the Commissioner, and not to delegation of ministerial acts. The signing and verifying of the decree is a ministerial act and that can be done by anyone authorised by the Commissioner to do so. In my view, the application is properly made. 8. In Hasan v. Ramchandra (I) an application signed and verified by the pleader was held sufficient as the pleader was "acquainted with the facts of the case". In Al1 (Lnga BMma Deo v. Madana Mohono Deo (2), relied upon by the appellant, the pleader had no vakalat at all. The Court did not consider the provisions of Order XXI, rule II, which lays down the requirement for the making of the application. In this case, too much stress is laid on Order XXI, rule 10. With great respect, I find it difficult to accept the ratio of the above decision. Order III, rule I, permits except where otherwise provided by law and application to he made either by the party in person or by his recognised agent or his pleader. There being a special provision in Order XXI, rule II, the said restrictions of rule I do not apply. What I have stated above also applies to the decision in Appaji v. Govindasami (3). It is not alleged that the Estate Manager who has signed and verified the application was not acquainted with the facts of the case. It is, therefore, properly made. [The rest of the judgment is not material to this report.] Appeal dismissed,