( $8 ) Cn Arron xviii.-Execution of DEcares. On this portion of the Code more questions have been raised and more cases decided than on any other. Our amendments have accordingly been rather numerous. But, with two exceptions—the clauses in section 218, as to applications to execute decrees for the payment of money or delivery of property, and the sections (214.328) relating to insulvency—they will be found not to make any great change in substance. We proceed to specify these amendments, omitting mere changes in wording and arrangement. Section 202.-We have here touched on the mode of executing decrees for the delivery of a share of the dwelling-house of an undivided Ilindu family (2 Wym. Rep. 217). Section 203.—IIero we have embodied a ruling of the Iligh Court, Fort William (1 Ind. Jur. N. S. 807), that in a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, a decree for the plaintiff shall be declaratory only, and shall be enforced in case of disobedience only by attachment. Section 215.-We have here made it clear that property liable to attachment must be saleable, and, in accordance with decided cases, we havo expressly exempted (a) necessary wenring apparel, (b) books of account, (c) mere rights to sue, (d) the right to perform the service of an idol, (e) stipends allowed to pensioners of Government, (/) salaries of servants of Government, (7) an expectancy of succession by survivorship, anti (h) a right to future maintenuncc. Section 218.-We have given the Court a discretionary power to refuse exccution at the same time against the person and the property of the jndgment-debtor. Sir l{arnes Peacock (8 Suth. C. lt., 282, 284) held that the Court had the puwer, but it is well to give it expressly. We here propose to make the following important change in the law as to applications to execute decrees for the payinent of money or the delivery of other property : Where an application to execute such a decree has been made and granted, no subsequent application to execute the same decice shall be granted, unless the Court is ratisfied that, on the former application, due diligence was used to procure coin plete ext cutio. ; and no such subsequent application shall be made after the expiration of twelve years from any of the following dates:— (a) the date of the decree sought to be enforced ; or (b) where the decree directs payment or delivery by instilments, the date of the default in paying or delivering the instalment in respect of which the applicant seeks to enforce the decree : or (c) Where the decree is for money, and the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor have entered into an agreement in w.iting that the amount decro sil, with interest, shall be discharged by such instalments as, if duly paid, will dis.harise the said amount and interest at some time within thirty years from the date of the decree, the date of the default in paying the required instalment: Provided that a decrec.holder may apply for execution of his decree after the crpiration of the term of twelve years where the judoment-debtor has by fraud or force prevented execution at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application. Section 220.-IIero, in accordance with another ruling of Sir D. Peacock’s (9 Suth. W. R, 232), we havo declared that when a dec; et against several persons has been transferred to one of them, he shall not be oatiuled to have it executed against the others. Ilis remedy is a suit for contribution. In section 221, we have here provided that cvery transferrec of a decree shall hold it subject to the equities (if any) wirich the judgment-debtor might have euforced against the transferor. Secfion 222 deals with cross-decrees. We havo provided for the casus omissus of the two sums decreed being equal, and we have added explana ions in accordance with the rulings reported in 6 Suth. F. B. 72, and 7 Suth, 585. In section 223 wo have dealt with the subject of cross-claius under the suiuc decree.
