( 1. ) THE short point involved in this revision relates to the question about the commencement of limitation for an application for execution in a case where the decree directing delivery of possession to one party is conditional on payment of certain amount by the party seeking possession to the other side, who is already in possession and when the decree does not fix any time limit for making the payment.

( 2. ) IT was not disputed that the decree sought to be executed by the applicants was on the following terms:

(i) That on payment of a sum of Rs. 2,000 by the applicants to the non-applicants, the applicants will be entitled to get back possession of the suit land from the non-applicants by executing the decree;

(ii) No time limit was fixed for making such payment. The decree was passed on a compromise between the parties therein there was nothing in the terms so as to fix any period for making the aforesaid payment.

( 3. ) MORE than 12 years after the date of the decree, the applicants tendered and deposited the required sum of Rs. 2,000 for payment to the non-applicants and applied for being placed in possession in execution of the said decree. The executing Court earlier directed issue of warrant of possession, but later on revoked its own order by holding that since the application for execution was moved beyond the period of 12 years, it was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the same. The applicants preferred an appeal against the said order and the same was dismissed. The lower appellate Court upheld the order of the executing Court. The applicants have now come before this court in revision challenging the legality of the orders made by the Courts below.

( 4. ) THE main contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that since no time-limit was prescribed by the decree in question, the applicants were free to make the payment at any time. The argument was that the right to execute the decree accrued only when the payment required by the terms of compromise decree was made. According to the applicants, the decree for obtaining possession did not become enforceable unless and until the amount required to be paid to the non-applicants was tendered and deposited. It was, therefore, contended that the limitation started from the date of deposit and as such the application for execution was within time.

( 5. ) NONE appeared on behalf of the non-applicants to oppose this application despite service.

( 6. ) SHRI S. C. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court reported in Lalji v. Gajadhar (AIR 1962 All. 431.) in support of the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the applicants. The facts of the case before the Bench of the Allahabad High Court were substantially similar to the facts of the present case. The Division Bench was of the opinion that as the compromise decree did not provide for any period for payment of the sum specified in the decree which was the condition precedent for claiming possession of the suit property by the other side, the plaintiffs could make the aforesaid payment at any time, ft was further held that even if the plaintiffs paid the aforesaid amount after 12 years of the decree, the execution could not be held to be barred by limitation, because the same started running from the date of deposit and not from the date of the decree, because in the absence of the deposit having been so made, the decree was not enforceable. According to the Division Bench, Article 181 could come into play only after the right to apply accrued to a party. It was observed that the right to apply accrued only on the date when the decree became capable of being enforced. The Bench was also of the opinion that the continuance of the other side in possession of the property so long as the payment was not made was to be treated as permissible under the decree and could not be treated as adverse. For taking the aforesaid view, the Di