( 1 ) HEAD both the Counsel

( 2 ) THIS C. R. P. arises on the execution side. The petitioner is. the decree holderin O. S. NO. 227/1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Nalgonda. It is submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,493/- against the defendant basing on promissory note. The suit was decreed ex parte on 29-6-1994. The respondent filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree in I. A. No. 582/95, but the same was dismissed. Later, the respondent preferred la. No. 533/1995 in the suit under Section 47 C. P. C. on the ground that the decree should be set aside as the claim of the petitioner is baited by limitation.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the sole groundset up before the executing Court was that the suit claim was barred by limitation.

( 4 ) THE lower Court after considering the arguments adduced by both thesides held that the decree in O. S. No. 227/93 is illegal, void ab initio and cannot be executed on the ground that the claim of the petitioner in the suit was barred by limitation and allowed the I. A. and dismissed the E. P. No. 72/95.

( 5 ) THE only point for consideration is whether t