The final order on the application for execution must be taken to have been made on the day when the Court finally disposed of the dispute between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors as regards the amount recoverable under the decree.

JUDGMENT

1. The facts which are not in dispute in these appeals are these: The Appellant decree-holder obtained a mortgage decree against the judgment-debtors Respondents on the 3rd of April, 1934. He put this decree into execution but the execution case was struck off after the issue of the sale proclamation on the 12th of November, 1934. The mortgagee decree-holder started a fresh execution case on the 23rd of November, 1935. The judgment-debtor filed an objection to the execution of this decree for reducing the decretal amount under sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court allowed the objection of the judgment-debtors and ordered that the execution would proceed for Rs. 6,500. This order was made on the 30th of June, 1937. Being dissatisfied with the order of the executing Court, which reduced the amount of the decree under execution, the decree-holder appealed to this Court. This Court affirmed the order of the executing Court on the 23rd of August, 1939. The present execution case was started on the 5th of July, 1941. On these facts the lower Court has come to the conclusion that the present applications for execution by the decree-holder are barred by limitation. The decree-holder appeals to this Court.

2. The only point for determination in these appeals is whether the decree-holder's applications are now barred by limitation. From the facts which have been already stated above, it would appear that the provisions of Art. 182 (5) of the Indian Limitation Act are attracted to these cases. The only question is whether the final order passed on the application for execution started in the year 1935 was made on the 30th of June, 1937, or on the 23rd of August, 1939. The "final order" in Art. 182 (5) apparently means the final order passed on the application for execution. When the decree-holder being dissatisfied with the order of the executing Court appealed to the High Court, it cannot be said that the final order on the decree-holder's application for execution was made on the 30th of June, 1937. The final order on the application for execution must be taken to have been made on the day when this Court finally disposed of the dispute between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors as regards the amount recoverable under the decree. Admittedly this order was made within three years from the date of the present applications for execution.

3. The learned Judge was, therefore, wrong in coming to the conclusion that the decree-holder's applications are barred by limitation. This view is also supported by the decision in the case of Abhe Ram v. Bhola (1935) 157 Ind Cas. 604.

4. The result, therefore, is that these appeals are allowed, the orders of the lower Court dismissing the decree-holder's application for execution are set aside and the execution cases will now proceed. The decree-holder is entitled to get his costs from the Respondent judgment-debtors in these appeals, consolidated hearing-fee in both the appeals, two gold mohurs.