( 1 ) THE appellant in this appeal is the judgment-creditor and she filed an execution application to execute the decree. It has been dismissed by the executing Court on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is against this order that this appeal has been brought by the judgment-creditor.

( 2 ) AT the time when this appeal was taken up for hearing Mr. Zaveri learned Advocate for the respondent raised a preliminary objection that an appeal from order cannot lie but it should have been filed as a First Appeal. The learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Shelat agrees to this and both Advocates have no objection to this appeal being treated as First Appeal. I therefore direct that this appeal may be registered as First Appeal and I proceed to dispose it of on that basis.

( 3 ) THE appellant filed the suit for maintenance of both past and future as well as for a declaration of her right to a share in the property. A compromise purshis was put by the parties before the Court on 20th March 1958. By this compromise the defendant was to pay Rs. 1100. 00 on account of mesne profits for the period 1st April 1954 to 20th March 1958 within three months from the date of the compromise. The compromise also entitled the plaintiff-appellant to recover that amount with six per cent interest thereon if the same were not paid within three months. In this appeal I am not concerned with the other terms of the compromise except that by the lass clause it was agreed that each of the parties shall pay to Government an amount of Rs. 381-4as. for court fees.

( 4 ) ON this compromise purshis the Court endorsed the following order on the same day:-THE plaintiff and the defendant are present. The compromise is read over and explained to them and they admitted the same. Hence decree be drawn up in terms of it on payment of court fees of Rs. 381-4-0 by each party. No amount of Court fees was paid by either party and no decree was drawn up. On 6th January 1960 the appellant gave an application to draw up the decree without payment of court fees as directed earlier. On that application after hearing the parties the Court passed the following order on 8th April 1961 :-I therefore order that the office should draw up a decree and send its copy to the Collector for recovery of the deficit court fees from parties shown in the compromise decree. Thereupon the office prepared the decree and it was signed by the learned Civil Judge on 26th April 1961. The decree bears the date of 20-3-1958

( 5 ) THE Judgment-creditor-appellant filed an application for execution on 28th September 1961. It is filed after more than 3 years from the date of the decree that is from 20-3-1958. The payment was ordered to be made within three months of that date that is the last date on which the amount of Rs. 1100. 00 should be paid by the respondent to the appellant was 20th June 1958. The execution application was more than 3 years from that date also. Naturally therefore an objection about the execution application being barred by limitation was taken by the respondent. In order to meet this objection the learned advocate for the appellant advanced two arguments namely (1) that by the order dated 8th April 1961 the trial Court amended the decree that was made on 20th March 1958 and that limitation of three years therefore began to run from the date of the amendment and (2) that the order made by the learned trial Judge on 20th March 1958 was a provisional judgment and that a final judgment was delivered by the learned trial Judge on 8 April 1961 and therefore the decree is really made on 8th April 1961 and that the application for execution is within the period of 3 years from that date. The learned trial Judge negatived both these contentions. In the appeal before me the first ground namely that the order dated 8 April 1961 amounted to an amendment of the decree was not pressed. It is obvious that the order dated 8th April 1961 does not amend anything. It only remo