W T W Baker—The facts are set forth in the judgments of the Courts below. It has been found by both the Courts below that the money paid into Court by the Plaintiff remained his property and that the creditors of Hiralalsa were not justified in taking it, but the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed as barred by limitation under Article 29 or the Limitation Act.

2. Plaintiff makes this second appeal on the ground that Article 29 does not apply and that in any case the lower appellate Court was not justified in dismissing the suit under Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure Code, against the Defendants 2 and 3, against whom a separate decree had been passed and who had not appealed.

3. It is argued by the learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant that in order that Article 29 of the Limitation Act should apply the case must fall either under Order 21, Rule 31, or Rule 43 which it does not, and refers to Yellammal v. Ayyappa Naick at 984 and 987 and Ram Narain v. Brij Banke Lal as showing that a prohibitory order is not seizure.

4. The Respondent relies on Jagiivan(sic) Javerdas v. Gulam Jilani Chaudhari , in which it was held that a suit to re-cover money wrongly taken under a