B.D.Singh, J.

1. This appeal by the sole appellant who was decree-holder in the executing court, is directed against the order of learned Subordinate Judge, dated 20-5-67 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1004 of 1966, holding that the execution levied by the appellant in Execution Case No. 59 of 1966 was barred under the provisions of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The respondents were the judgment-debtors in the said execution case.

2. In order to appreciate the points for decision in this appeal, it will be necessary to set out the facts in brief. The appellant instituted Misc. Case No. 20 of 1950 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh for appointment of arbitrator for examining the accounts of the partnership business maintained by Mahendra Lal Kushiari, for recovery and deciding disputes between the parties and for valuing the effects, and goodwill of the partnership business to enable the appellant to purchase the interest of Mahendra Lal Kushiari at half the valuation so made minus any sum that might be found due from Mahendra Lal Kushiari to the appellant. The Subordinate Judge appointed arbitrators, who submitted award on 25-2-1952. Objection was raised to the award. However, the court overruled the objection, and confirmed the award by order dated the llth July, 1952. The decree was prepared and signed on 12-10-63.

According to the decree the appellant was entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 7,895/- from Mahendra Lal Kushiari. The appellant put the decree in execution on 20-9-66 in Execution Case No. 59 of 1966 against the respondents, they being the sons, daughters and widow of Mahendra Lal Kushiari who died before the execution was levied. Ram-chandra Kushiari respondent No. 1, one of the sons of Mahendra Lal Kushiari, on being served with a notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code), filed an objection to the maintainability of the said execution case. His objection was registered as Misc. Case No. 1004 of 1966. Respondent No. 1 in the rejoinder application inter alia pleaded that the said execution case was barred under Article 182 of the Act, and that Mahendra Lal Kushiari having died on 19-2-62 prior to the drawing up of the decree the decree was a nullity, having been drawn up against a dead person.

No rejoinder to the said application of respondent No. 1 was filed on behalf of the appellant. However, they appeared before the court of Subordinate Judge, and opposed the contention advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties held that the decree was not a nullity, but the execution of the decree was barred under Article 182 of the Act. Hence, this appeal.

3. Mr. Prem Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the impugned order of the learned Subordinate Judge, and contended that he erred in holding that the execution was time barred under Article 182 of the Act. He submitted that the learned Subordinate Judge was in error in holding the date of the decree to be llth July, 1952, based on the date on which the award was confirmed. According to him, the date of the decree was 12th of October. 1963 on which date apparently the decree was drawn up and signed. According to him, from 12th of October, 1963 the period of three years prescribed under Article 182 of the Act would start running. Therefore, the execution application which was filed by the appellant on 20-9-66 was within the prescribed period and it was not barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Act. The appellant could not have levied the execution in the absence of the decree. The appellant was not in any way to be blamed. For the laches of the court or its officers in not preparing the decree earlier to enable the appellant to execute the decree within the prescribed period of limitation the appellant should not be made to suffer.

In order to