Beasley, C.J.

1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The final decree in the suit was passed on 2nd December 1921. On 21st October 1925 that decree was amended. It is contended here that the final decree of 2nd December 1921 had become barred by the date of the application for the amendment of the decree and its amendment on 21sfc October 1925. On 28th March 1927 the decree-holder applied for execution. This application was dismissed on 4th May 1927. Ho again applied on 4th November 1927. His application was again dismissed on 22nd November 1927. The execution petitioner filed another petition on 20th January 1928 and objection was raised that the petition was barred by limitation as having been presented more than three years after the passing of the final decree on 2nd December 1921. The District Munsif upheld this objection. The lower appellate Court reversed the District Munsifs decision. Hence this appeal.

2. It is argued here that the amendment of the decree was merely a formal one and that the final decree was an executable one even in its unamended form. In our view, we are not concerned with that. The fact that the final decree had already become barred or t