JUDGMENT 1. This is an application by the plaintiff decree-holder for amendment of the Tabular Statement on account of defects therein. 2. Mr. S.P. Majumder, learned Counsel for the petitioner decree holder submitted that by the amendment the properties and assets which the decree-holder is seeking to obtain in execution of the decree does not affect the judgment-debtors Lalit Mohan Agarwal and Benoy Kumar Agarwal and accordingly he is not proceeding in this application against the said Lalit Mohan Agarwal and Benoy Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Majumder relied on Order XXI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides for amendment of the execution in certain circumstances. Mr. Majumdar submitted that Order VI, Rule 17, which contain provisions for amendment of pleadings, do not apply to this case. 3. Relevant portions of Order XXI, Rule 17 are set out below to appreciate the rival contentions :- "17. (1) On receiving an application for the execution of a decree as provided by Rule 11, sub-rule (2), the Court shall ascertain whether such of the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 as may be applicable to the case have been complied with; and, if they have not been complied with, the court shall allow the defect to be remedied then and there or within a time to be fixed by it. (1A) If the defect is not so remedied, the court shall reject the application: Provided that where, in the opinion of the court, there in some inaccuracy as to the amount referred to in clauses (g) and (h) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11, the court shall, instead of rejecting the application, decided provisionally (without prejudice to the right of the parties to have the amount finally decided in the course of the proceedings) the amount and make an order for the execution of the decree for the amount so provisionally decided. (2) Where an application in amended under the provisions of sub-rule (1), it shall be deemed to have been an application in accordance with law and presented on the dated when it was first presented. (3) ……………….. (4) ………………… It was pointed out by Mr. Majumder that originally in the Tabular Statement a prayer was made for examination of the judgment-debtors who were mentioned in prayer (b) of column 10 of the Tabular Statement and also for execution of the decree against them. (3) ……………….. (4) ………………… It was pointed out by Mr. Majumder that originally in the Tabular Statement a prayer was made for examination of the judgment-debtors who were mentioned in prayer (b) of column 10 of the Tabular Statement and also for execution of the decree against them. Prayer (d) of column 10 of the original Tabular Statement was as under;- "The decree be executed by attachment and sale of those properties and assets as may be found belonging to the said persons as mentioned in prayer (a) of the petition by appointment of a receiver over the same with a direction to take possession of such properties and assets and by selling the same either by public auction or private treate with a direction to pay the net sale proceeds to the petitioner, plaintiff/decree-holder for the satisfaction of the decree and costs of and incidental to this application. In the circumstances no further details of the properties or the value thereof could be given." 4. Mr. Majumdar submitted that the application herein for execution being a written application for execution came within the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 11, sub-rule 2. Under the said sub-rule various particulars were to be given. Clause (g) of the said sub-rule provides, inter alia, that particulars as to the amount with Interest due upon the decree or other relief granted thereby are to be given. In the present case the decree being a money decree only the amount with interest due on the decree had to be and was stated, in column 7 of the Tabular Statement and the said amount was calculated upto a particular date and not upto the date of the application for execution, that is 26th July, 1984. By the proposed amendment of column 7 of the Tabular Statement the amount of the decree with interest thereon upon the date of the application for execution has been introduced in place and stead of the earlier arn6unt. Under clause (c) of sub-rule 2 of the said Rule the date of the decree was given as 1982 in place of 1972 which has been sought to he corrected. Under clause (c) of sub-rule 2 of the said Rule the date of the decree was given as 1982 in place of 1972 which has been sought to he corrected. Under clause (j) of the said sub-rule the mode of assistance of the court is required to be given Under sub-clause (ii) of clause (j) such assistance is to be by attachment or by attachment of sale or by sale without attachment of any property, and under sub-clause (iv) the same is by the appointment of a Receiver. Mr. Majumdar submitted that particulars of the properties of which attachment or attachment of sale is asked for are to be given and particulars of the property 'over which appointment of Receiver is asked for are also to be given but these were not and could not be given as the decree holder had no knowledge of the properties when the application for execution was made and the application was therefore to the extent defective and such defect is now sought to be removed by supplying the particulars of the properties by necessary amendment of the Tabular Statement Mr. Majumdar has also submitted that there will be no question of limitation inasmuch as if the application for execution is allowed to be amended then under Sub-rule 2 of Rule 17, Order XXI, such amended application shall. be deemed to have been an application in accordance with law and presented on the date when the application for execution was first presented. Mr. P.K. Mullick, learned Counsel for Lalit Mohan Agarwal and Benoy Kumar Agarwal two of the judgment-debtors submitted that since the decree-holder is not proceeding in the present application for execution against his clients, he has nothing to say in the matter and does not take any objection to the amendments sought for. 5. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Counsel for the judgment-debtors against whose properties and assets the decree is sought to be executed by amendment of the Tabular Statement referred to Order XXI, Rule 17 and submitted that if the Court has ascertained that the requirements of Rule; 11 to 14 of Order XXI have not been complied with, then only, amendment could be allowed and the defect could be remedied either then and there or within the time to be fixed by the court. Here the decree holder did not know of the properties and assets against which it can execute the decree and therefore deliberately kept it vague with a prayer that the particulars would be supplied as and when disclosed by the judgment-debtors upon their examination by affidavit or otherwise. It was submitted that this is not a case falling under Rule 17 of Order XXI. It was next urged by Mr. Roy that no particulars of the properties or assets would be necessary when appointment of Receiver over the same was asked for but such particulars would be necessary only in the case of attachment of immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. Mr. Roy referred to Rule 13 of Order XXI which provides for giving particulars of the immoveable property sought to be attached sufficient to identify the same, including judgment-debtor's share of interest in such property. No such provision is made in the case of appointment of Receiver. Thus, it could not be said that so far as the appointment of Receiver was concerned, the application for execution was defective inasmuch as particulars of the properties over which appointment of Receiver was sought were not furnished. Thus it was not a case coming under Order XXI, Rule 17. The submission of Mr. Roy that Rules 11A, 12 and 14 of Order XXI had no application to this case is correct. It was next urged by Mr. Roy that the procedure for examination of judgment debtor was in aid of execution and not execution itself. A decree-holder makes an application under Order XXI, Rule 41 for examination of the judgment-debtor for disclosure and ascertainment of his properties and upon such ascertainment from the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder would be entitled to make an application For execution of the decree against such properties. But if the decree was barred by that time, no application for execution would be maintainable. An application for execution made within time against properties of the judgment-debtor would lie if some specific property could be mentioned although with defective description. But by making vague allegation and thereafter by ascertaining the particulars of the properties from the judgment-debtor in a proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 41, the decree-holder could not amend his application for execution by incorporating the properties so ascertained. But by making vague allegation and thereafter by ascertaining the particulars of the properties from the judgment-debtor in a proceeding under Order XXI, Rule 41, the decree-holder could not amend his application for execution by incorporating the properties so ascertained. It was also urged that here the application for execution was made only a few days before expiry of the period of limitation for execution of the decree. Now it is state when execution of the decree is long barred if the amendments are allowed that would work as a great hardship to the judgment-debtors. It was also urged by Mr. Roy that the court did not ascertain if the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 of Order XXI were complied with if the Court did ascertain then only the court will direct to remedy the defects either then and there when ascertained or within a time to be fixed by the Court. Therefore, in any event, Order XXI, Rule 17 would not be applicable in the present case. 6. As already recorded there was a prayer for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of properties belonging to the judgment-debtors in the tabular Statement and for appointment of Receiver over the same. The prayer was however somewhat jumbled up and in fact to prayers have been combined in one. Be that as it may, since the prayers were there the court has enough power and authority for the ends of justice to grant both or any of these prayers by remoulding then suitably. The Tabular Statement as filed in the execution application was defective to the extent that the year of the decree was wrong and the particulars of the properties so light to be attached and sold had not been furnished as required under Order XXI, Rule 11 sub-rule (j)(ii) read with Order XXI, Rule 13 of the Code. The Court however did not find out the defects on receiving the application for execution but the same was found out by the court in course of the proceedings that the particulars of the properties have not been given in the Tabular Statement. Mr. Majumdar, therefore prayed to court that the decree-holder may be allowed to amend the Tabular Statement which was acceded to by the court, hence this application. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mr. Majumdar, therefore prayed to court that the decree-holder may be allowed to amend the Tabular Statement which was acceded to by the court, hence this application. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Roy that no particulars of properties of which receiver is sought to be appointed in execution of the decree are required to be given as there is no specific provision in that behalf as in the case of attachment of property in execution. It is inconceivable that the court will appoint a Receiver over properties which are unknown or without having any particulars to Identify the same. Thus, if a prayer for appointment of Receiver in execution is made particulars of the properties over which appointment of Receiver is asked for, have to be given whether there is a specific provision in the code in that behalf or not. In this context it may be noted that in Order XL of the Code which contains provisions for appoint of Receiver by the Court in suits and other proceedings, there is no provision that the particulars of the properties of which the Receiver is asked to be appointed by the court. are to be given. 7. No doubt examination of judgment-debtor is a provision in aid of execution and where the decree-holder may not be able to ascertain the properties and assets belonging to the judgment-debtor he may take recourse to this provision for discovery by the judgment-debtor of his properties and assets against which the decree-holder may proceed. This, however, would not mean as sought to be urged by Mr. Roy that an application for examination of judgment-debtor has to be made prior to an application for execution and not after that. It may be noted in this connection that the provision for examination of judgment-debtor as to his properties contained in Order XXI, Rule 41 appears in that chapter of Order XXI which deals with attachment of property. Roy that an application for examination of judgment-debtor has to be made prior to an application for execution and not after that. It may be noted in this connection that the provision for examination of judgment-debtor as to his properties contained in Order XXI, Rule 41 appears in that chapter of Order XXI which deals with attachment of property. No doubt, as the decree has on this day become time barred and if this application is, allowed that may cause some hardship to the judgment-debtors but it will also be a matter of great hardship to the decree-holder which had to file the suit against the judgment-debtors and thereafter obtained a decree against them and has come forward to execute the decree, would lose the benefit of the decree if the amendment is not allowed. The application for execution was made within the period of limitation although practically at the last moment. But that was a right given to the decree holder under the law. He could file his application for execution on the last date of limitation and no exception could be taken thereto by the judgment-debtor. The application for amendment however has not been a belated one and has been promptly made as soon as the properties and assets belonging to the judgment-debtors could be ascertained and particulars thereof could be furnished and the Court found the defects in the application for execution. I am not impressed by the contention of Mr. Roy that this is not an application under Order XXI, Rule 17 or the provisions thereof do not apply to the present application. I have already discussed my reasons. Lastly, I would like to add, if the court did not ascertain the defects in the application for execution on receiving the same, the petitioner decree-holder could not be blamed by being penalised for the same actus curfe neminem gravabit. 8. There will be an order in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the Master's Summons. The altered and amended amount of the decretal dues is decided provisionally as the decretal dues, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to have the amount finally decided in course of the execution proceedings and until such decision, the execution shall proceed for the said altered and amended amount. 9. The altered and amended amount of the decretal dues is decided provisionally as the decretal dues, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to have the amount finally decided in course of the execution proceedings and until such decision, the execution shall proceed for the said altered and amended amount. 9. The application for execution being the first chamber application appearing in the list is adjourned for three weeks. 10. The amendments be carried out and incorporated within two weeks from date on a signed copy of the minutes on the usual undertaking. 11. The department and the parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes. Mr. Roy appearing for the judgment-debtors, Rajendra Prosad Agarwalla, Ghanshyamdas Agarwalla and Bhawani Prosad Agrawalla, against whose properties the decree is now sought to be executed, prays for stay of operation of this order for a fortnight. The prayer is granted.