This revision is by the judgment debtors. The respondent decree holder obtained a decree for money on 28-6-1977. He filed E.P. 381 of 1982 for execution of that decree. The essential prayer in that execution petition was for recovery of the amounts due under the decree by, the arrest and detention of the judgment debtors. On 28-9-1992, twelve years after the decree but even while his execution petition was pending, decree holder applied by E. A. 996 of 1992 seeking to add an alternate prayer for recovery of the decree amount by sale of certain properties which the decree holder claimed the judgment debtors possessed. In a sense, what the decree holder sought was an amendment of his execution petition by adding a further payer for recovery of the amounts due under the decree by proceeding against the properties which he claimed, belonged to the judgment debtors. The judgment: debtors opposed that application. One of the various contentions raised was that on the date E.A. 996 of 1992 was made, for seeking to proceed against the property, the execution of the decree was barred by limitation if that application is treated as a fresh execution petition and that in such a si