( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been brought to this Court on a certificate granted by a learned Single judge deciding an execution second appeal that the case was a fit one for being taken in special appeal.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated thus :

( 3 ) THE appellant was a judgment-debtor in a decree made against him by a Sub-Divisional officer on 13-8-1936. That decree was put into execution for the first time on 12-2-1938. The execution application was made in the Court of the Collector of Meerut for the sale of zamindari property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor filed various objections to the execution of the decree including the objection that the Collectors Court was not the proper court for executing the decree. On 31-7-1939, the Collector allowed the objections of the judgment-debtor but did not decide the question as to whether or not he had jurisdiction to execute the decree. Therefore the question as to whether or not the Collectors Court was the proper court for executing the decree in question remained undecided.

( 4 ) ON 21-8-1939, the decree-holder made a second application for execution and this application too was presented in the Court of the Collector, for by this application also the decree-holder prayed for execution by the sale of the zamindari property of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor again raised objections to the execution of the decree and he again reiterated his objection as to the jurisdiction of the Collector to entertain the execution application. This time the Collector considered the question as to whether or not he had jurisdiction to grant execution and he decided that he had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. He, therefore, made an order directing the application for execution to be returned to the decree-holder for presentation to the proper court. The decree-holder presented the execution application, which had been returned to him under the orders of the Collector dated 15-9-1942, to the Court of the Sub-Divisional officer, Baghpat, on 19-9-1942. The judgment-debtor raised the objection of limitation in the Court of the Sub-Divisional officer. His contention was that execution was barred because no proper application for execution had been made within three years of the date of the decree. On behalf of the decree-holder it was contended that he had bona fide and with due diligence prosecuted an execution application for a similar remedy against the judgment-debtor in a court which on account of want of jurisdiction could not give him the relief which he had sought in that court and therefore his contention was that he was entitled to exclude all the time that had been spent in his bona fide and with due diligence prosecuting the same remedy in another court; the decree-holder in effect relied on the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act.

( 5 ) THE executing court and the court of first appeal repelled the objection of the judgment-debtor in regard to limitation. On second appeal to this Court a learned single Judge held that Section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act applied to execution applications as well and therefore the decree-holder who had been prosecuting bona fide his application for execution in the Court of the Collector was entitled to a deduction of the time which had been spent by him in prosecuting his remedy in the court of the Collector. It has been conceded that if the period during which the decree-holder had been prosecuting his execution in the Collectors Court could be excluded in computing the period of limitation, then the application dated 19-9-1942, would not be beyond time. The courts below have found that the decree-holder acted bona fide and prosecuted his application with due diligence. These were questions of fact on which the decision of the court below was bindine on this Court and therefore these findings have to be accepted, and the only question that we were cal