1. This appeal raises two questions on which there is considerable divergence of opinion; and they are:

(1) whether time under Art.11A, Limitation Act, runs from the date of the order of the executing Court on a claim petition or of the High Court on a petition for its revision; and

(2) if the starting point be the former, can the time taken by the revision proceeding be excluded from computation under S.14 of the Limitation Act.

2. The suit property, having been purchased by the plaintiff in court sale, was delivered to him by process of Court. The first defendant, who had been in possession of the property as mortgagee under the purchaser in an earlier court sale, applied under 0.21 R.100 for restoration of possession to him and it was allowed by the executing Court on 18-3-1122. The plaintiff's petition for revision of that order was dismissed by the High Court on 25-4-1122. The present suit under 0.21 R.103 C.P.C. was instituted on 23-4-1123. It was allowed substantially by the Munsiff, but has been dismissed on appeal by the Subordinate judge as barred under Art.11A, Limitation Act. The plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

3. Art.11 and 11A of the Limitation Act dea