( 1 ) THE appellant-decree-holder, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28-1-1980, passed by the Second Civil Judge (Class II), Jagdalpur, holding that the execution application was barred by limitation, challenges the same by filing this revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) IT appears that the applicant obtained a decree against the non-applicants on 13-8-1954 from the Court of Civil Judge (Class II), Murwara, for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1724/- including costs. On an appeal filed, the appellate Court, by its judgment and decree dated 1-7-1955, modified the decree by ordering payment of interest at the rate of 4% per annum from 16-9-1953, i. e. , the date of the suit, till realization. It is not disputed that application for execution of this decree was presented within the period of limitation prescribed for the purpose. On 23-3-1957, the applicant applied for transfer of the decree to Jabalpur and the decree was transferred to Jabalpur where a sum of Rs. 410/- was realized till 2-5-1962. During the pendency of the execution at Jabalpur, the applicant again applied to the Court at Katni for re-calling the decree from Jabalpur and transfer the same to Jagdalpur. This application was made on 4-7-62 and Was seriously contested by the judgment-debtors. Ultimately, the Court at Katni rejected the objection by its order dated 15-1-1977 and ordered transfer of the decree to Jagdalpur Court. The transfer certificate was issued on 31-3-1977. It appears that the transfer certificate was sent to the District Judge, Jabalpur, who eventually forwarded the same to the Civil Judge (Class II), Jagdalpur, for further necessary action in accordance with law. In the meantime, the applicant filed an application on 11-3-1977 requesting the Court at Jagdalpur to execute the decree in accordance with law. An objection was taken by the non-applicant judgment-debtor that the application dated 11-3-1977 was a fresh application for execution and it should be treated as barred by limitation. The objection prevailed and the execution dismissed. It is this order which is impugned in the present revision.

( 3 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the executing Court wrongly construed the factual and legal aspect of the matter and illegally held that the execution was barred by time. In the alternative, it is submitted that the application for transfer made at Katni, should have been treated to be a step-in-aid and, therefore, sufficient to dismiss the plea of limitation. The learned counsel for the non-applicant-judgment-debtor, however, vehemently supported the order and submitted that transfer of decree, by itself, was not sufficient to start execution and a fresh application in the Court at Jagdalpur was necessary for the purpose, which should have been filed within 12 years from the date of decree as provided under the Limitation Act Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Mishra v. Security and Finance (P) Ltd. , Civil Revn. No. 551 of 1981, decided on 30-8-1983.

( 4 ) THE period of limitations for an application for execution of a decree was earlier governed by. Art. 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and is now governed by Art. 136 of 1963 Act. Art. 183 (5) of 1908 Act provided that where an application for execution has been made, the period of three years shall be reckoned from the date of the final order passed on an application made in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step-in-aid of execution of the decree or order. This clause was interpreted by Gujarat High Court in State of Rajasthan v. R. Savkasha, AIR 1972 Guj 179 to mean that in cases where a decree is transferred from one Court to another for execution, an application for execution has to be made in the transferee Court within a period of three years from the date of order of transfer. This provision, however, is no longer on the statute book. Art. 136 o