1. The lower appellate Court has not appreciated the requirements of a step in aid of execution. What has to be decided is whether the prior execution applications were applications in accordance with law. If the prior applications were in accordance with law, then they serve as steps in aid of execution and the final order passed on such applications give a fresh start. The question therefore is whether the previous applications had been presented in accordance with law. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, it is not every defect in an execution application that will render the application 'not one ' in accordance with law. In this case the previous applications were filed without any defect whatever. No doubt certain further acts may be required by the Court to be done before effectual execution can be ordered on those very applications. The sale papers may be directed to be filed and several other acts may be required to be done by the decree-holder before the Court can proceed with the execution and if the decree-holder does not comply with those requirements, the execution petition may be dismissed. But that is far from saying that the applications themselves were not presented in accordance with law. Here the appellate Court has not pointed out a single defect in the prior execution applications which will take the case out of Article 182. The decree-holder may have no doubt persistently refused to carry out certain directions of the Court which were directed to be done, in all the three prior applications. But that is no ground for saying that those applications are not steps in aid of execution.
2. The order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the District Munsiff restored with costs throughout.