Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.

This appeal arises out of an application filed by the respondent under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A suit was filed by the appellants in 1949 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, for a money decree amounting to Rs. 1,24,556/- against the Union of India, impleading both as defendant nos. 1 and 2 (present respondent nos. 1 and 2) and it was transferred to the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Purnea, and was decreed on 31st July, 1954. The Union of India filed an appeal in the High Court which was registered as F.A. 487 of 1954 and an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of Execution Case no. 53 of 1957 started by the decree holders in the court below was filed. On 5.1.1951, Trial court passed an order of stay of the execution on the condition that the judgment debtor deposited the entire decretal amount within three months from the order which the decree holders could withdraw on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the executing court. On 7.2.1968, the Judgment debtor appellant deposited the decretal sum amounting to Rs. 1,77,245.75 and the decree holders took some time in furnishing the required security. Ultimately, they withdrew the amount on 9.9.1958. On 9.7.1960 the First Appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. The plaintiffs filed an application for certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court which was numbered as S. C. A. 115 of 1960. It has been stated at the bar that although leave was refused by the High Court, the Supreme Court granted permission under Article 136 of the Constitution and an appeal was lodged, heard and ultimately dismissed on 24.9.1965. In the meantime, the defendant judgment-debtor respondent filed an application for restitution under section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 27.4.62 which was numbered as M.C. 6 of 1962. On 26.9.1964, this miscellaneous case was dismissed by the Additional Subordinate Judge on the ground that it should have been filed in the permanent court and the Additional court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Thereafter on the 14th December, 1964, the judgment debtor filed another application for restitution which was registered as M.C. 47 of 1964 giving rise to the present appeal. The decree-holders appellants challenged the maintainability of this case and pleaded limitation. They also alleged that the impugned claim by the judgment debtor was inflated and no interest could be granted. By the impugned order, the court below has overruled the objections and held that the judgment debtor was entitled to the reliefs.

2. Mr. Prasad, appearing in support of the appeal raised the following points:

(a) the prayer for restitution contained in M. C. 47 of 1964 is barred by limitation.

(b) the respondent is not entitled to interest and, in any event, interest could not be granted for the period commencing on the date of the deposit by it in the execution case the calculation should be made with effect from the date of withdrawal by the decree holder; and

(c) the respondent is not entitled to ask for realization of the decree of costs granted by the High Court in its application for restitution.

3. The main arguments addressed on behalf of the parties have been in regard to the question of limitation. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that under the provisions of the old Indian Limitation Act, 1908, which held the filed till 31.12.1963 and applied to the miscellaneous case, the period of limitation had expired before the new Act, came on 1.1.1964 and the present restitution application must be held to be barred by limitation by virtue of clause (a) of section 31 of the new Act, which is in the following terms:

“31. Provision as to be barred or pending suits etc.

Nothing in this Act, shall.

(a) enable any suit, appeal or application to be instituted, preferred of made for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitati