Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act can be applied to execution applications, and the time spent in prosecuting execution proceedings can be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period.

In the basic year Khatauni the respondent Smt. Nirmala Devi was recorded as Sirdar of plot Vo. 271 measuring 1 Bigha, 19 Biswas and 18 Biswansis. The petitioner filed an objection contending that her husband Ram Asrey and after his death she herself had been in possession for more than 30 years and had as a consequence thereof acquired rights under the U. P. Tenancy Act and also under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This objection has been rejected by all the three Consolidation Authorities who have concurrently held the entry in favor of the respondent to be correct. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The following facts are not in dispute. Smt. Nirmala Devi the respondent had filed a suit against the petitioner which was decreed by the revenue Court. The final order passed by the Board of Revenue is annexure 20 to the writ petition. It is dated 25- 3-1964. Actually there were two suits, one about plot No. 271, which is in controversy in the instant case and the other about plot. No. 272, filed by the respondent against different persons. In para 13 of the judgment of the Board of Revenue which was common to the two appeals, it was recited that second appeal No. 611 (in which the petitioner was the appellant) failed and was dismissed with costs. Thereafter in paras 14 to 18 the other second appeal of the present respondent against the other defendant (who is not a party herein) was dealt with, and in para 18 it was mentioned that the said second appeal was allowed and the orders of both the Courts below were set aside and the case was "remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after imp leading the State. Thereafter in the concluding paragraph No. 1, 9 it was added as follows:

"19. This order would govern second appeal No. 611 of 1962-63 and 124 of 1963-64/distt Pratapgarh. When the records of the two cases were received the trial Court issued notices to the parties, and some dates were fixed. Ultimately it was discovered that so far as plot No. 271 was concerned there was no remand at all inasmuch as second appeal No 611 of 1962-63 having been dismissed as recited in para 13 of the judgment of the Board, that suit had stood finally decreed and it was only the other suit which was the subject of second appeal No. 124 that had been remanded. Accordingly, on 10-11-1965 the Assistant Collector terminated the misconceived proceedings that he had initiated after what he as well as the parties had erroneously thought to be an order of remand in respect of this suit as welk

thereafter on 24-3-66 Smt. Nirmala Devi made an execution application, a copy of which is annexure 21 to the writ petition. By this application relief was sought under Order 21 Rule 35, C. P. C. by way of delivery of actual possession over plot No. 271. In this application the date of final decree was shown in columns 4 and 7 both as "25-3-64-10-11-65. " As noted earlier 25-3-64 was the date of disposal of the second appeal while 10-11-1965 was the date of the subsequent order of the Assistant Collector terminating the subsequent misconceived proceedings. The period of limitation prescribed for an execution application under the Rules framed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, vide entry 5 3 of the appendix, is one year from the date of the final decree. This period of one year had already expired even before 10-11-1965 the date of the subsequent order of the Assistant Collector mentioned above, if the period of limitation was to be counted from 25-3-64. Accordingly an application for relief under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also given along with the execution application It was contended by the decree holder Suit. Nirmala that she had been punctually prosecuting the case in the Collec tors Court after the decision of the second appeal by the Board of Revenue in the circumstances already narrated, and that the time spent there should be excluded. This a