An execution application for one item in a decree cannot save limitation for an execution application for another item, where the decree contains a clear direction that each claim is separately enforceable.

( 1 ) THIS execution first appeal is from the order dated January 7, 1965 of the Sub-Judge, I Class, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the appellant s objections and held that the execution application filed on behalf of the decree-holder on April 27, 1963 was within time. The decree in this case was passed on January 8, 1960 on the basis of an award dated August 8, 1959.

( 2 ) THE relevant portions of the award, which was made a rule of the court and was incorporated in the decree, provided, inter alia in its operative part as follows :

1. Shri Gulzari Lal (the judgment debtor) will pay to Shri Murari Lal (the decree-holder) a sum of Rs. 4605. 74 within a month of this award. 2. * * * 3. * * * 4. That Shri Guizari Lal will pay to Shri Murari Lal testing charges for 194 cylinders (referred to under item No. 4 of Schedule on being supplied the receipt of the manufacturers charges for testing and will replace such of them as are found unfit for use according to the testing report and in case of default will pay at the rate of Rs. 85. 00 per cylinder not replaced within one month of the receipt of testing report, 5. * * * 6. It is made clear that in the case of non-compliance of the aforesaid directions each party will be entitled to enforce each claim separately as per the award against the other in accordance with law. Each direction will be separately enforcible and its enforcement will not be dependent on other directions. "the first execution application was filed on December 29, 1962 for the recovery of Rs. 4605. 74 mentioned in item No. 1 of the award as reproduced above. Being fully satisfied, this application was ordered to be consigned to the record room as dismissed on March 80, 1963 The present application was filed on April 27, 1963 for the purpose of executing item No. 4 of tie award as aforesaid. In an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the judgmentdebtor, an objection was raised that the application was barred by time. It was stated that the earlier application for execution dismissed on March 30, 1963 was of no help to save limitations, as that related to an entirely independent item of the decree. According to clause 6 of the decree compliance or non-compliance with one direction in the decree had no effect on the other directions. Each direction was independent of the others and was enforceable independently and separately. In fact, the decree consisted of a number of decrees on each item. An execution application to enforce one item, therefore, could not be pressed into service to save limitation for the execution application in respect of another item of the decree. This contention of the judgment debtor, however, was rejected and the learned Sub-Judge held that an application for partial execution of the decree was a step-in-aid of execution and that it extended the period of limitation for a subsequent application. He therefore, held that the present application was within time and allowed the decree-holder s execution application to proceed. The judgment-debtor contests this finding of the learned Sub-Judge in this appeal,

( 3 ) MR. R. L. Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor-appellant submitted that although there is only one decree, it covers several distinct items for which separate suits could have been filed. The award, which is now incorporated in the decree has independently dealt with each separate item. It is thus a case of several decrees having been passed although they have been set out in one decree Under these circumstances the rule of limitation, contended the learned counsel, would be applicable separately to each item of the decree and an application for execution of the decree in respect of the sum recoverable under one item would not, under Article 183, clause (5) of the Limitation Act, 1908, protect from the bar of Limitation, the decree in respect of sum recoverable under other items of the decree. In support he relied on