JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal arising out of proceedings in execution of a decree. The following facts will disclose the nature of the question which we have to decide in this appeal.

2. On the 22nd January, 1909, the Arbitrators made an award granting a drcree in favour of the appellant in this case for Rs. 4,000. Two conditions were mentioned in the award, namely, (a) that the judgment-debtor might pay the amount in three years by equal instalments, the first instalment falling due on the 1st of January, 1910; and (b) that if the judgment-debtor paid Rs. 3,500 within seven months of the date of the award he would be allowed a remission of the remaining Rs. 500.

3. On the award being filed in Court; certain objections were raised which delayed the passing of a decree on the award. A decree was eventually passed on the 23rd May, 1910, for Rs. 4,000 without incorporating the clauses above-mentioned. A default in payment of the first instalment had already taken place and the judgment-debtor had also failed to pay Rs. 3,500 within seven months. Consequently according to the terms of the award, the plaintiff had become entitled to realise the entire amount of Rs. 4,000 from the judgment-debtor and an unconditional decree for the amount was passed in his favour. An application for the execution of the decree was made on the 23rd June, 1913. In this application the decree-holder rightly stated that, owing to the failure on part of the judgment-debtor to fulfil the condition mentioned in the award, he had become entitled to recover the whole amount of Rs, 4,000 in a lump sum. An objection was taken to the execution of the decree on the score of limitation and the application for execution being clearly beyond three years from the date of the decree was held to be barred by time and was dismissed.

4. The decree-holder then applied on the 30th June, 1915, for the amendment of the decree, stating that all the terms of the award had not been incorporated in it. The decree was amended on the 25 th of October, 1915, and the decree-holder put in a fresh application on the 18th June, 1917, for the execution of the amended decree within three years from the date of the amendment and relied upon Clause (4) or Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908).

5. Both the Courts below have dismissed the application, holding it to be barred by time on the ground that the decree had already become dead when its amendment was applied for and it could not be revived by being subsequently amended. They have correctly stated the law that where a decree is quite capable of execution, as it stands, its amendment cannot entitle the decree-holder to a fresh period of limitation under Article 182, Clause (4). In support of its decision the appellate Court has relied upon the case of Anandram v. Nityananda Barham (1916) 32 Ind. Cas. 744. In our opinion, the decision (1) of the learned Judge of the Court below is fully supported by the ruling quoted by him. This ruling was followed in another case, namely, Rabiuddin v. Ram Kanat Sen (1921) 59 Ind. Cas. 186, where it has been laid down that "a decree which is capable of execution and is not executed within three years from its date becomes dead and cannot be revived by a subsequent application for amendment," We are entirely in accord with the view expressed in these two rulings. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the application for execution is clearly barred by time and has rightly beendismissed.

6. We accordingly dismiss the appeal, but having regard to the circumstances of the case we do so without costs.