JUDGMENT

Gopi Nath, J. - This is a decree-holders execution second appeal.

2. The decree-holder was the plaintiff in a suit under Section 209 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. That suit was decreed on 12-8-1961 and the defendants dispossession was ordered. The plaintiff was further granted a decree for damages. The application for execution was filed on 22-7-1965. The defendant filed an objection on 16-8-1965 on the ground that the execution was barred by time. It appears that on 17-8-1965 a formal Dakhal was taken by the decree-holder, and the judgment-debtor filed another objection that the Dakhal was fictitious. The trial Court, by an order dated 21-3-1966 allowed the judgment-debtors objection holding the execution as barred by time. It rejected the judgment-debtors objection as regards the Dakhal being fictitious. Two appeals were filed before the lower appellate Court.

The judgment-debtor filed his appeal against that part, of the trial Courts order which held that the Dakhal was not fictitious. The decree-holder filed his appeal against the striking out of the execution as barred by time. The appellate court, by its order dated 30-11-1967 allowed the judgment-debtors appeal and dismissed the one filed by the decree-holder. It held that the execution was barred by time, and the trial courts order striking out the execution on that ground was correct. The decree-holders appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. It allowed the judgment-debtors appeal holding that the Dakhal purporting to have been taken on 17-8-1965 was fictitious, and hence the judgment-debtors objection to that effect was allowed.

3. The decree-holder has come up in second appeal and the main point urged on his behalf was that the execution was not time-barred and the court below had erred in holding to the contrary. The time prescribed for the execution of a decree or order passed in a suit under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is contained in Appendix III of that Act in Items 51 to 53 which are as follows :

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the decree passed under Section 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was for ejectment and damages and the decree was passed in terms of O. 20, R. 12-C of the Civil P. C. The appellant could thus apply for the preparation of the final decree and the time for execution of the same commenced from the date of the passing of the final decree. It was submitted that the application for execution could be treated as an application for the preparation of the final decree and so long as that application was not disposed of limitation did not commence against the decree-holder for the execution of the decree passed under Sec. 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was submitted that Items Nos. 51 to 53 of Appendix 3 of the U. P. Za