CHANDRA REDDY, C.J. :- The question to be answered by the Full Bench is formulated in these words :

"Whether the consistent view as hold in Venkatragayya Appa Row v. Sriramulu 17 Ind Cas 593 (Mad); Baiznath Lala v. Ramadoss, ILR 39 Mad 62 : (AIR 1915 Mad 405) and Alagappa Chettiar v. Somasundaram Chettiar, 1937 Mad WN 465 (2) that only the pendency of the infructuous revision should be excluded under S. 14(1) of the Limitation Act, requires re-consideration in view or Rule 41-A(2) of the Appellate Side Rules prescribing the period of 90 days for civil revision petitions, or for any other reason, so as to exclude the entire period from the date of the adverse order to the date of disposal of the infructuous revision under the said provision of the Limitation Act."

2. For an appraisal of the issue that presents itself before us, it is necessary to recall a few material facts. The Rajah of Vizianagaram obtained a decree in S.C.S. No. 1098 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Visakhapatnam, against one Hanumanthu, husband of the second respondent and the father of the third respondent herein. In execution of this decree, he brought the properties, the subject-matt