AR.Lakshmanan, J: The above civil revision petition was filed against an order, dated 2. 1990 in unnumbered E.A.No. ...... of 1989 in O.S.No. 172 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai. The said E.A., for delivery was dismissed by applying the principles laid down by this Court in the decision reported in Devendra v. Badrabagu, I.L.R. (1986)2 Mad. 72 as barred by limitation. It was contended before the lower court that since delivery was already ordered within one year from the date when the sale became absolute in E.A.No.333 of 1982, the present application was only to execute or give effect to that order of delivery and that therefore Art. i 34 of Limitation Act cannot have any application, for that Article only applies to an application for delivery and it does not apply when the application had already been ordered. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, Art. 136 of the Limitation Act is the proper provision to be applied because that article applies not only to a decree but also to an order of a court, which is executable as a decree. The decision of V.Balasubramanyan, J. in the decision reported in Perumal v. Ramachandra Padayachi, (