Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. The question in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the decree-holder is whether the execution petition can be treated as a continuation of a priorexecutionpetition,E.P.No.26ofi935,whichwasclosedon 5th November, 1936. The present petition was filed on,14th December, 1942, that is, more than six years after the order on the previous execution petition. The learned District Judge held against the appellant and gave two reasons for his conclusion. One is that the prior execution petition must really be deemed to have been dismissed though the order stated that it was " closed," because no schedule of immovable property was furnished, as it ought to have been under Order 21, Rule 13, and the real intention of the decree-holder was not to proceed with the attachment of the immovable properties which he wanted but only to secure rateable distribution of the assets that had been realised in execution of a decree obtained against the same judgment-debtors in another suit by a different creditor. The second reason given was that the present petition cannot be regarded as a continuation of the previous ?u C) ,- r, 26 of I935> inasmuch as the relief