Section 15, Limitation Act, applies to Section 48, Civil Procedure Code, and the period of stay of execution is excluded from the computation of the limitation period.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the decree-holder against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, on an application under Section 47, Civil P. C. , dismissing an application for execution for the balance of a rent decree.

( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way: On 17-4-1935, the appellant obtained a decree in a rent suit for the sum of Rs. 5,727-15-0. Thereafter the debtors went to the Debt Settlement Board, but ultimately their application was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Debt Settlement Board. Then on 1-11-1941, a petition for execution of the decree was filed by the appellant. In the application which was made the assistance of the Court was sought by attachment and sale of the movables ' belonging to the judgment-debtors. Three objections were filed by the judgment-debtors under Section 47, Civil P. C. in the said execution case and as a result thereof three miscellaneous cases were started. The main ground of objection taken by the judgment-debtors was based on Section 168a, liengal Tenancy Act; in other words, it was contended that in view of the provisions of Section 168 (1) (a), Bengal Tenancy Act no sale of the movables sought to be attached can be effected in execution of the said decree. It would be necessary at this stage to refer to the contents of the said application for execution. In the said application it was stated that as the decree-holder had caused the tenure to be sold and had purchased it, the other properties of the judgment-debtors cannot be held liable for the payment of the balance of the decree. In substance what was contended was that in view of the provisions of Section 168a, Bengal Tenancy Act only the tenure could be sold in execution of the rent decree and the said tenure having already been sold the decree could not be executed by sale of any other property of the judgment-debtors. The said objection under 9. 47, Civil P. C. was upheld by the trial Court. Against that decision an appeal was taken to the Court of the District Judge. The lower appellate Court reversed the said decision. Thereupon three appeals were preferred to the High Court against the said decisions. I should have mentioned that the lower Court on 19-11-1942, on being apprised of the fact that appeals have been preferred to the High, Court made the following order: "the execution of the decree be stayed until further orders. " the stay remained in operation from 17-11-1942, to 17-7-1949. By an order of the High Court dated 18-7-1949, the matter was sent back to the trial Court for re-hearing. Thereafter on 27-7-1949, the decree-holder filed a petition for amendment of the

original application for execution. In the said petition the amendment sought for was substitution of the immovables in the place of the movables which was in the original petition. An order was made on the said application allowing the amendment. The judgment-debtors thereupon, it appears, applied for stay and we are told that the execution of the decree remained stayed from. 8-9-1949 to 9-1-1951, and on 9-1-1951, the stay was vacated. On 26-8-1951, in execution of the said decree an attachment was effected on the immovable properties mentioned in the amended application for execution. Thereafter on 22-9-1951, the present objections were filed under Section 47, Civil P. C. In the said application under Section 47 of the Code it was stated that the order complained of, that is to say, the order of amendment made on 27-7-1949, had been passed without giving an opportunity to the applicants-judgment-debtors to put forward their objections. It was also contended that apart from the amendment of petition for execution under Order 21, Rules 11, 12, 13 and 14, Civil P. C. any other mode of amendment was not legal. In the circumstances the objectors prayed 'inter alia' for an order for reconsidering or recalling the order on a declaration that the application of the decree-holder dated 27-7-1949, is barred by limitation and that