( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner-judgment- debtor in OEP No. 62/98 in OS No. 204/81 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Palamner.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein, the decree- holder in the said E. P. tiled seeking arrest of the judgment-debtor and to commit him to civil prison in case of non-payment of decretal amount. For the purpose of convenience the parties will be referred to as decree-holder and judgment-debtor.

( 3 ) THE facts in nutshell are that the decree-holder filed OEP No. 62/98 in OS no. 204/81 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, palamner seeking the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor for non-payment of decretal amount and in the affidavit filed in support of the EP the facts relating to the means of the Judgment-debtor had been furnished and the judgment-debtor filed a counter contending that he is a very old man and he has no means to pay the decretal debt and also had taken a stand that the decree in question is dated 6-4-1982 and the ep is filed on 15-6-1998 which is clearly beyond the period of limitation. PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the Decree- holder and judgment-debtor had examined himself as RW1 and Ex. Pl certified copy of the decree in AS No. 180/86 against IP No. 1/82 on the file of Additional Subordinate judge, Chittoor, was marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the court below had arrived at a conclusion that the judgment-debtor is having means to pay the decretal amount and in view of Section 78 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the ep filed by the decree-holder is within the period of limitation and had directed the issuance of arrest warrant. The judgment-debtor, aggrieved by the same, had filed the present civil revision petition raising several grounds, the most important being the question of limitation.

( 4 ) SRI P. V. Vidyasagar, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner-judgment-debtor had drawn my attention to the relevant portions of the order of the court below i. e. , paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 and had contended that the Court below had totally erred in holding that the E. P. is within the period of limitation since Section 78 (2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act is not applicable at all to the present case. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Vaithilinga vanniar, AIR 1939 Mad. 270 and chaturvedula Venkata Lakshminarasimham and another v. Sha Ven Venktaji and Co. , air 1949 Mad. 363. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Sections 10, 25, 27, 29 and also Section 78 (2) of the provincial Insolvency Act and had made elaborate submissions relating to the scope and ambit of these provisions and how in the present matter the limitation cannot be saved even by virtue of Ex. P1. The learned counsel also had commented about the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and the evidence relating to the means of the judgment-debtor, recorded by the Court below.

( 5 ) SRI T. C. Krishnan the learned counsel representing the respondent-decree-holder had seriously contended that the judgment-debtor himself had invoked the insolvency jurisdiction and the matter was pending in Appeal AS No. 180/86 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge. Chittoor which was disposed of on 22-4-1993 and hence the E. P. is within the period of limitation and the learned Counsel also further contended that on the ground of equity, the judgment-debtor cannot take advantage of his own act by virtue of which the Decree-holder cannot proceed with the execution and contend that the E. P. is barred by limitation.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel. The important question that falls for consideration in the present revision is the question of limitation. The other aspects of the matter, of appreciation of evidence and the finding relating to the means of the judgment-debtor etc. , will depend upon the decision on this first question of limitation. Column No. 4 in EP No. 62/98 simply specifie