JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J. :—This appeal by certificate is from the order dated 26 July, 1967, of the High Court of Assam.

2. The only question in their appeal is whether the respondents application filed on 27 July, 1965, for execution of the decree obtained by him is barred by limitation.

3. The respondent on 7 January, 1952, obtained a decree against the appellant for the sum of Rupees 71,980 in a money suit filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Gauhati. On 8 December, 1956, the respondent decree-holder filed an application No. 89/56 for executing the said decree. On 15 July , 1957, the appellant, the Judgement debtor , filed an application pleading adjustment of the decree. On 15 April, 1958 the judgment debtor withdrew the said application. On 18 December, 1957, the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati dismissed the decree-holders application No 89/56. The decree-holder preferred an appeal. The High Court at Gauhati on 1 July, 1959 set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and allowed the appeal for execution of the decree.

4. Meanwhile on 18 January, 1958, the appellant judgment debtor in the Gauhati suit obtained a decree against the respondent for the sum of Rs. 1,22,000 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nowgong. In execution of the decree in the Nowgong suit the appellant on or about 29 January, 1958 obtained an attachment of the respondents decree passed in the Gauhati suit.

5. On 13 August, 1959, the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati struck off the execution application No. 89/56 from the file.

6. The respondent filed an appeal against the decree obtained by the appellant in the Nowgong suit. The High Court on 28 April, 1964 accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the Nowgong suit filed by the appellant.

7. On 27 July, 1965 the respondent filed an application for execution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati. The appellant preferred an objection contending that the application is barred by limitation. On 4 March, 1966 the Subordinate Judge dismissed the execution application as barred by time.

8. On 26 July, 1967 the High Court accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and directed the execution to proceed.

9. The contention of the appellant is that the order obtained by the appellant attaching the respondents decree did not amount to a stay within the meaning of Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and, therefore, the respondents application for execution which was filed on 27 July, 1965, was barred by limitation. The appellant contended that when the Subordinate Judge, Gauhati on 13 August, 1959 struck off the execution application of the respondent the respondent should have filed an application for execution within three years from that date.

10. The High Court referred to the order dated 29, January, 1958, passed by the Nowgong Court attaching the decree obtained by the respondent. The High Court relied on the provisions contained in Order 21, Rule 53(1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the attachment continued restraining the respondent from executing the decree until the notice issued by the Court attaching the decree was recalled. The Nowgong Court did not pass any order recalling the order. On 1 March, 1958, the Nowgong Court passed an order which was as follows :

"Notice served. No objection filed by J.D. (meaning thereby judgment debtor). Heard both parties. Execution case is struck off for the present, Attachment to continue until further orders".

11. In the context of this order of attachment passed by the Nowgong Court the attachment continued until the Nowgong suit was dismissed by the High Court on 28 April, 1964. The High court rightly held that there was no question of limitation because the application was filed within three years from 28 April, 1964 when the bar against execution was raised and the order restraining the respondent decree-holder from executing the decree in the Gauhati suit ceased to be operative.

12. Another contention which had been raised by