1. This appeal is from an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada who held that an execution petition filed on 15th July, 1927, was barred by limitation. It was contended before him that a previous execution petition, namely, E.P. No. 78 of 1925 filed.on 26th October, 1925, which is Ex. E, was an application in accordance with law made to the proper Court for execution and saved limitation and hence the execution petition in question was not barred by limitation by Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act. The facts of the case quite shortly are that the original decree-holder was one Ramanarayana Daga. He filed an insolvency petition in Calcutta and was adjudged insolvent, his properties therefore vesting in the Official Assignee of Calcutta. The Official Assignee of Calcutta sold all the debts due to the original decree-holder from others, and the present appellant, the execution-petitioner in the lower Court, purchased all those debts. There is an assignment deed Ex. G by the Official Assignee of Calcutta, dated 12th September, 1925, and registered on 16th September, 1925. It was on the strength of Ex. G that the appellant filed his execution petition on 15th J