The period of limitation for the first application for execution of a decree is prescribed by Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and not by section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

V. D. Misra, C. J.—This judgment will dispose of execution second appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1975 since common questions of law and fact have to be decided.

2. The relevant facts are these. On 18th January, I960 final decree for possession of the agricultural land in question was passed in favour of Shiv Nath, The decree holder made an application for execution of the decree on 3rd March, 1965. It was dismissed an 21st August 1965, as being barred by time. Second application was made on 26th August, 1965. It met the same fate. The third application for execution was made on 29th January, 1966. The decree holder claims that he got possession of the suit land on 18th June, 1966. The Judgment debtor, who does not admit this fact, made an application on 30th November, 1970. He denied possession having been delivered to the decree holder. The executing court accepted the objection application holding that the application for execution was time barred and that the judgment debtor was never dispossessed from the suit land. The decree holder appealed to the District Judge who dismissed the appeal.

3. Mrs. Malhotra, learned counsel for the decree holder-appellant, contends that section 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable and, therefore, the application for execution could not be dismissed as barred by time. At this stage section 31 may be noticed. It reads thus ; "Nothing in this Act shall,— (a) enable any suit, appeal or application to be instituted, preferred or made, for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908,, expired before the commencement of this Act; or (b) after any suit, appeal or application instituted, preferred or made before, and pending at such commencement."

4. It is plain that if the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 for execution of the decree in question had expired, it could not be revived. But Mrs. Malhotras contention is that the execution was governed by section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code and not by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

5. Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, which has since been repealed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, was in the following terms : "48. (1) Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of twelve years from— (a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or (b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed— (a) to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration of the said term of twelve years, where the judgment debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application ; or (b) to limit or otherwise affect the operation of article 183 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1903."

6. Article \S2 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, on which the argument of^ the learned counsel for the appellant is based, may also be noticed. It was in the following terms ; "For the execution of a decree or order of any Civil Court not provided for by Article 183 or by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Three years ; or, where a certified copy of the decree or order has been registered, six years. (1) The date of the decree or order, or (2) (Where there has been an appeal) the date of the final decree or order of the Appellate Court, or the withdrawal of the appeal, or (3) (where there has been a review of judgment) the date of the decision passed on the review, or (4) (where the decree