( 1 ) IN this application for review of the judgment of the Single Judge in Civil Second appeal No. 129 of 1952, the question for decision is this: Has that Court committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record when it has described as a "notification", a particular order of the Durbar of the erstwhile Gwalior State on which the decree-holder-applicant relied as the means of saving limitation? certainly the question is not whether that notification was one properly so-called, or something more namely a statute which need not be proved, but should be judicially noticed, nor is it the question whether the Single Bench judgment is wrong in this regard.

( 2 ) THE facts arc simple. Long long ago the decree-holder obtained a money decree against the non-applicant which he put into execution well after the statutory period of limitation. When this was pointed out by the non-applicant judgmentdebtor the decree-holder argued that during this interval the Durbar had made and notified an order giving as it were a moratorium. After that order or notification spent itself he filed the application for execution, and was therefore, entitled to get the period excluded. It