( 1 ) THESE are two appeals by a judgment-debtor arising out of execution proceedings.

( 2 ) GANGA Prasad and Premraj filed suit No. 65 of 1949 against Mithan Lal, the present appellant, which suit was dismissed on November 30, 1950. An appeal by the plaintiffs was allowed on july 30, 1951, when their suit was decreed by the lower appellate court. Against the decree of the lower appellate court Mithan Lal preferred an appeal to this Court. On September 19, 1951, meanwhile, the decree-holders applied for execution of the dacree of the lower appellate court, but these execution proceedings were stayed during the pendency of Mithan Lals appeal in this court. That appeal was dismissed by this Court on December 19, 1954.

( 3 ) IT appears that on December 27, 1951 when the execution application was pending, the original decree-holders sold the decree under execution to Thana. Thereafter on February 15, 1955, an application was made by Thana for being substituted in place of the original decree-holders. This application was allowed on May 5, 1955. The execution application was, however, dismissed for default on August 16, 1955. An application for review of the order dated may 5, 1955, allowing Thanas substitution was allowed and the substitution application was also dismissed on August 17, 1955. The first execution application having been dismissed, Thana filed a fresh execution application on August 25, 1955, along with a substitution application. This application was numbered as miscellaneous Case No. 148 of 1955 and has given rise to the present Execution Second Appeal no. 2849 of 1959. An objection was filed by Mithan Lal which was numbered as Miscellaneous case No. 157 of 1956 giving rise, to the present execution Second Appeal No. 2850 of 1959. The executing court allowed Thanas substitution application and dismissed Mithan Lals objection. Mithan Lal consequently filed two appeals, but these were also dismissed by the learned District judge, Bulandshahr. Mithan Lal now appeals to this Court.

( 4 ) IT is Contended that the decree of the lower appellate court, which has been transferred to thane, could not be executed, after the decree of this Court dismissing Mithan Lals second appeal on 19th November, 1954, that it was the latter decree which alone could be executed, the lower appellate courts decree having merged into the decree of this Court. This contention has no force, fn Saroop Narain v. Suraj Mohan, AIR 1942 Oudh 84 a Bench of the Oudh Chief Court declared that a fresh execution application was not necessary in such circumstances. In Pateshwari Prasad Singh v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1945 All 496, it was laid down by this Court that although where a Court affirms, reverses, or modifies the decree of the first court and the decree of the appellate Court was the only decree capable of execution, yet where the appellate decree affirmed the decree of that first court an objection that the decree of the lower appellate court could not be executed was a mere technical objection which should not be allowed to prevail. It was held that a decree-holder, whose application in execution of his decree had been stayed by an appellate court, could continue execution proceedings on that application after the dismissal of the judgment-debtors appeal. Reliance was placed for the appellant on Shohrat Singh v. Bridgman, ILR 4 All 376, Muhammad sulaiman Khan v. Muhmmad Yar Khan, ILR 11 All 267 (FB), Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Fatima, ILR 9 Ail 104 (FB), Nanchand v. Vitfiu, ILR 19 Bom 258, Chandar Kanta v. Lakshman chandra, AIR 1917 Cal 417. Hand Kumar Singh v. Bilas Ram, AIR 1918 Pat 260 and Harilal dalsukhram Saheba v. Mulchand Asharam, AIR 1930 Bom 225.

( 5 ) THESE cases are clearly distinguishable. Either the case was one where an execution application was made for the first time after the appellate court decree superseded the decree under appeal or it was 3 case where the question which arose was as to the period of limitation f