1. With great respect I think that Itty v. Mam (1963 K. L. T. 442) was correctly decided and does not require reconsideration; and if that be so it is not disputed that this appeal must fail. In my opinion the result reached in that case can be reached on a plain reading of the statute Section 15 (1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 without reference, on the one hand, to such considerations as the decree-holder's unfettered right to execute his decree in any manner he chooses or, of the hardships involved in the other possible views, or, on the other, of the propriety of an extension of time when the decree-holder can keep his decree alive by making applications in an unprohibited mode (whether feasible or not), a device which, in any case, would be unavailing against the twelve years rule.

2. The section does not speak of absolute or partial stays, and, it seems to me clear that, if there is a stay at all, it would be correct to say that execution of the decree has been stayed, no matter that the stay is restricted to one particular mode of execution and execution in other modes is open. (I am, of course, speaking of a single decree, not of a composite decree which re