The main legal point established in the judgment is that the object sought by the claimant in making the application under Rule 58 must be attained by the release of the property from attachment within the time limited by Rule 63, and in such circumstances, Article 11 of the Limitation Act does not apply.

JUDGMENT

Rankin, J. - This is a title suit for lands by a lady against the judgment-creditors of her husband who caused the lands to be taken in execution as being the husband's property and bought them himself at the execution sale. The defendant's decree was obtained in 1910 in Suit No. 453 of 1909. On 4th November, 1910, he attached the lands and the plain-till filed a claim under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code. Her claim was dismissed for default on 7th January, 1911. Nevertheless, the defendant as decree-holder took no further steps to bring the property to sale, and the execution proceedings were dismissed very soon afterwards for default whereupon the attachment ceased under Order 21, Rule 57. In 1918, the defendant issued execution against the same lands and purchased them at the auction sale. The Lower Appellate Court has disposed of the case on the footing that the second execution was under the same decree.

2. The present question is whether, on the assumptions, this suit brought in 1918 is barred by Article 11 of the Limitation Act not having been brought within a year of the dismissal of the claim case.

3. For the appellant, it is contended that when the execution proceedings were dismissed and the attachment fell to the ground in 1911, there was no necessity for her to bring a suit under Order 21, Rule 63 against the decree-holder. Reliance is placed on Umesh Chandar Roy v. Raj Bulubh Sen (1882) 8 Cal. 279 decided under the Code of 1859 : and on the following cases decided under the Code of 1882 : Gopal Purushottam v. Bai Divali (1893) 18 Bom. 241 Krishna Prosad Roy v. Bibi Behari Roy (1903) 31 Cal. 228 and Morshia Barayal v. Elahi Bux Khan (1905) 3 C.L.J. 381

4. Babu Dwarka Nath Chakravarti who appears for the respondent distinguishes those cases - the Bombay case on the ground that no execution sale followed under the decree but merely a private sale - the other cases on the ground that, in all, of them, within one year from the dismissal of the claim case, the decree was satisfied. He points out further that, in Umesh Chander's case (1882) 8 Cal. 279 the sale was ultimately held under a different decree. He contends also that some of the observations in Morshia Barayal v. Elahi Bux Khan (1905) 3 C.L.J. 381 are inconsistent with the interpretation put upon the Code by the Privy Council in Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad (1888) 15 Cal. 521

5. He contends that Rule 63 of Order 21, when it says that the order made in the claim case "shall be conclusive" means conclusive as regards the right of that decree-holder to have recourse to that property under that decree; that if the particular execution proceeding is dropped and a. new one commenced under the same decree,, the claimant cannot prefer a fresh claim and litigate the matter over again. He points out that in every case where a claim is allowed the attachment falls; through, yet the decree-holder must bring his suit or else give up finally his right to levy on the property. He does not contend that the order in the claim case is conclusive even between the parties for all purposes; for example, that it. would be conclusive for purposes of execution under another decree. He admits accordingly that when the decree is satisfied, the unsuccessful claimant need not bring a suit; but that, he says, is because there is no further possibility of execution, under that particular decree.

6. Now, on ordinary principles of law and by the express words of Section 60 of the Code, a money-decree may be executed by attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's property including in the word property "all other saleable property, movable and immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor" save for certain special exceptions. By Rule 41 of Order 21, the debtor may be examined not only as to the debts due to him, but as to whether he has any and what other property or means for satisfying the-decree. Methods are provided for attaching every kind of property and the decree-holder has a gener