S. K. RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff-decree-holder is the petitioner. This revision is directed against an order dated 18-1-68 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 9/65 letting aside the final decree in O. S. No. ft/66.

( 2 ) THE sole question raised is that the executing court had no jurisdiction to treat the application of defendant-1 -judgment-debtor under Section 47, C, P. C. as one under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. and exercise jurisdiction in respect of the same-on its original side and set aside the final decree. The second ground of lack of jurisdiction is founded on the allegation that the petition under Section 47, even if treated as one under Order 9, Rule 13. C. P. C is barred by limitation.

( 3 ) IT is necessary before dealing with the points raised to set out certain salient facts leading upto the passing of the impugned order by the execution court. The plaintiff filed T. S. No. 9/55 for partitioning his eight annas share in the joint family property. In due course, a preliminary decree was passed on 23-7-57 decreeing the plaintiff's moiety share in the suit properties. The son of defendant-1 who is the main contestant in this revision filed an applicat