Somnath Iyer, J.—The only question involved in this appeal is one of limitation and it arises in this way. On November 30, 1948, in proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Deccan Agriculturists Relief Act there was a decree. That decree provided for two matters. It provided for the redemption of a mortgage created either by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title. The other matter of which it provided for was a sale, if there was no redemption, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,403-9-0 together with interests thereon determined to be payable to the defendant in that suit. The plaintiffs did not redeem the mortgage and so, the defendant executed the decree. The execution application with which we are concerned in this appeal was one presented on January 20, 1954.

It was stated by the decree-holder in the execution application that the execution application was within the time since there was an acknowledgment of the decree on August 14, 1951, through the payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- paid by a certain Mr. M.M. Gandhi. This payment was denied by the Judgment-debtor and so the matter was posted for evidence on March 10 1955 to April 2, 1955. There were at least 20 adjournments of the proceedings and the date of 21st adjournment was March 16, 1956 on which date, the judgment-debtors were absent and their pleader retired for want of instructions.

(2) The decree-holder examined himself and in addition, he examined Mr. M.M. Gandhi, who according to the decree-holder, had to paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on August 14, 1951 towards the decree. The evidence given by the decree-holder was that the payment of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was made by Mr. M.M. Gandhi on August 14, 1951 by means of a bank draft drawn on the District Central Co-operative Bank and which was endorsed in his favour by Mr. Gandhi.

(3) Mr. Gandhi who was examined by the decree-holder as his witness gave somewhat different kind of evidence. He admitted that he purchased a draft from the District Central Co-operative Bank for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and that he endorsed it in favour of the decree-holder. But he stated that the money paid into the Bank for obtaining the draft from it, was not the money paid by Judgment-debtor 1. His evidence was that Judgment-debtor 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the decree-holder on the date and that the decree-holder paid that money back to Mr. Gandhi asking him to obtain a draft for that sum of money from the Bank and that he did so.

(4) The Civil Judge refused to believe the evidence given by Mr. Gandhi and accepted that given by the decree-holder and so recorded a finding that the execution application was not barred by limitation. He directed the execution to proceed. The Judgment-debtors appeal.

(5) It was urged by Mr. Albal, the learned Advocate appearing for the Judgment-debtors, that the conclusion reached by the Civil Judge that Mr. Gandhi paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on behalf of the Judgment-debtor and as an agent in unsupportable. He next complained that the executing Court had unreasonably refused to grant an adjournment on March 16, 1956 when the case was closed.

(6) It does not appear to us that the complaint that there was unreasonable refusal of an adjournment can succeed. The decree was an old decree of the year 1948 and as rightly pointed out by Mr. Krishnamurthy a large number of adjournments were granted by the Court some times at the request of one side and sometimes at the request of the other. On March 16, 1956 when the matter was ultimately posted, the Judgment-debtors remained absent and their pleader retired for want of instructions. No reason were assigned in support of the request for an adjournment, and in our opinion, the Court below had no other alternative but to refuse the adjournment prayed for and proceed to dispose of the matter.

(7) In support of the other submission that Mr. Gandhi was not the agent of the Judgment-debtors so as to bring the payment within the provisions of Sectio