Somayya, J.

1. I have had the benefit of full and exhaustive arguments on the questions involved in this case. One is whether the case comes under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and the second is whether under Article 11 of the Act, the starting point is the date of the first order or the final order passed on a revision to the High Court.

2. The facts that are material for the decision of these questions are not in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant obtained a money decree against the second defendant in O.S. No. 98 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsiffs Court, Gooty and in execution of the said decree attached a house as belonging to his judgment-debtor. The first defendant who is the first respondent in this Court intervened with a claim petition which was allowed on the 21st January, 1938. On the 22nd March, 1938, the plaintiff who was the attaching decree-holder filed a revision petition before the High Court which was admitted and it was ultimately dismissed on the 28th November, 1940. The dismissal of the revision petition by the High Court was on the ground that the petitioner who is the appellant herein had a remedy by way of a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civ