Ananthakrishna Iyer, J.

1. The application filed by the decree-bolder oa 17th March 1932, for execution of the decree in S.C.S. No. 234 of 1932, has-been dismissed by the learned District Munsif on the ground that execution of the decree is barred by limitation. The learned District Munsif held that E.P. No. 173 of 1930, should not be taken to be a step in aid of execution, because the defendant was an undischarged insolvent at that time. In this revision petition filed by the decree-holder, it is argued that there was Article I.A. No. 424 of 1930 filed by the decree-holder on 23rd July 1933, for leave to execute the decree against the defendant under Section 28(2), Provincial Insolveney Act, and that leave was granted to the decree-holder on 26th August 1930. It is argued by the petitioner decree-bolder that assuming that E.P. No. 173 of 1930 would not be available, as the starting point for limitation yet;,, as I.A. No. 424 of 1930 was filed within three years of final orders passed on 5th January 1928, in the previous I.A. No. 210 of 1927, the present application was not barred as it was filed within three-years from the order passed on I.A. No. 424 of 1930. As the responden