1. The learned District Judge has dismissed the execution application No. 3 of 1909, on the grounds (a) that it was barred by limitation because the prior application No. 11 of 1906, was not an application for execution in accordance with law, because this prior application wrongly prayed for attachment of non-mortgaged properties before the mortgaged properties Were brought to sale and (6) that this same prayer repeated in the present, petition, No. 3 of 1909, cannot be legally granted as the decree obliges the decree-holder to bring the mortgaged properties to sale in the first instance and allows him to proceed against the other properties only for the balance of the decree amount (if any).

2. As regjards the 2nd ground the appellants (decree-holders) learned Vakil relied on certain Allahabad cases especially Pirbhu Narain Singh v. Amir Singh (1907) I.L.R. 29 A. 369 for his contention that the mortgagee and decree holder was entitled to abandon his claim under the decree to bring the mortgaged properties to sale and on such (sic) to apply for execution in the first instance against the other properties. Even if Pirbhu Narain Singh v. Amir Singh (1907) I.L.R. 29 A. 369 is