( 1 ) WHEN Civil Revision Application No. 1512 of 1972 came up for hearing before S. H. Sheth J. he referred the following four questions to a Division Bench :- (1) Whether the award passed under the B. A. D. R. Act is deemed to be a decree under clause (iii) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 38 of that Act ? (2) Whether by virtue of the provisions of clause (iii) of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 38 of the B. A. D. R. Act whether in the instant case (sic) attracted the provisions of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 ? (3) If answer to the second question is in the negative whether it attracted Article 181 residuary Article of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 ? (4) If the award under the execution was not governed by any of the aforementioned provisions whether it was governed by any other provision of law in relation (sic) to limitation ?when the matter came up before a Division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and C. V. Rane JJ. after referring to the earlier judgments of the learned Single Judge of this High Court and judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court they considered it necessary to refer the matter to a still larger Bench to reconcile the conflict. That is how the matter has come up before this Full Bench.

( 2 ) AS the questions herein raised also arose in Civil Revision Application No. 517 of 1970 the same was directed to be heard with Civil Revision Application No. 1512 of 1972 and that is how the cognate matter also came up before us.

( 3 ) FOR a proper appraisal of the questions raised before us it would be advantageous to refer to some relevant facts which transpire from the record in Civil Revision Application No. 1512 of 1972. One Chheda Akha Arja Arjan was the creditor of Barot Nagdan Parvat and his deceased brother Karsan Parbat. The debt came up for adjustment under the relevant Debt Relief Act and award was made by the Debt Adjustment Court that the debtor should pay to Chheda Akha Arjan the creditor a sum of Rs. 163-50 P. and after 1-1-1957 the debtor would be entitled to recover possession of a field known as Bandhadi situate within the revenue limits of Rav village on payment of first instalment of Rs. 100. It transpired before the Debt Adjustment Court that the field in question was mortgaged with possession with the father of creditor Chheda Akha Arjan and this debt was to be adjusted and by award debt was adjusted. Award was made an 26th December 1956 One of the co-debtors namely Karsan died and surviving debtor filed the execution application under the provisions of the Agricultural Debtors Relief Act in 1968. The creditor resisted the application inter alia contending that the application was barred by limitation. In the mean time the original creditor was dead and his heir was impleaded as creditor. The executing Court overruled all the objections raised by the creditor and held that the debtor was entitled to recover possession. An appeal was preferred by the creditor to the District Court Kutch at Bhuj being Appeal No. 2 of 1971. The District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the executing Court The creditor preferred Revision Application to this High Court and as stated earlier four questions formulated by the learned Single Judge have been referred to this Full Bench.

( 4 ) THE material question is whether an application for execution of an award made under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1947 (B. A. D. R. Act for short) would be governed by Article 181 or 182 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 and incidentally by corresponding articles of the Limitation Act 1963 Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 provides a period of limitation of three years; or where a certified copy of the decree or order of any Civil Court not provided for by Article 183 or by sec. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been registered six years. Article 183 provides a period of limitation of 12 years to e