1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge of Tuticorin holding that a suit on a mortgage was not barred by limitation, the point taken before us being that the suit was barred. The bar is said to arise under Article 11 of the Limitation Act and purports to be based on the failure of the plaintiff in this suit to bring his suit within one year from the date of the disposal of a certain objection petition. The lower Appellate Court has held that though the proceedings were under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they were not in a claim petition instituted under Rule 58 but were proceedings in settling a proclamation under the provisions beginning with Rule 64, namely, " sale generally." The learned Subordinate Judge has not given any reasons in his judgment but it is sought to be supported by a ruling to be found in the decision of the High Court of Bombay in Ganeshkrishna v. Damoo (1916) I.L.R 41 Bom. 64. There is some slight difference in the procedure in that case and in this case but the High Court certainly considered the question on the assumption that there was an objection taken under Section 278 corresponding to Rule 58, yet the