1. The question that arises for decision in this case is whether plaintiffs application for the execution of the revised mortgage-decree for sale in O.S. No. 57 of 1909 is barred by/limitation or not. The application was made more than three years from the date of that decree but plaintiff relies on his E.P. No. 17 of 1914 as giving him a fresh starting point under Clause 5 of Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The lower courts have differed in their view on the question whether that petition can be treated as one made in accordance with law for execution or to take some step in aid of execution the Subordinate Judge holding in the affirmative and the District Judge in the negative. The decree-holder is the appellant before us. To understand the nature of his contention it is necessary to state the circumstances in which E.P. No. 17 of 1914 came to be put in.

2. Plaintiff sued the defendants who are members of an Aliya-santhana family for the recovery of her mortgage-money by sale of the defendants family property mortgaged to her and obtained a decree for sale. That decree was an exparte one against the 6th defendant. He applied to set it aside and the Court granted his app