JUDGMENT

1. This is a second appeal against an appellate order of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Hardoi dismissing the judgment-debtor's appeal against an order of the learned Munsif. The decree-holder respondent obtained a decree for Rs. 683-10-0 against the appellant on 1st November 1923, He applied for execution of the decree twice between the date of the decree and 22nd December 1928, but these applications remained infructuous. On 22nd December 1928 he applied for execution for the third time and some property of the judgment-debtor was attached and ordered to be sold. 6th August 1929 was fixed for the sale but on that date the parties filed a compromise by which the decretal amount was agreed to be paid by eleven yearly instalments and it was provided that in case of default about any instalment the entire amount remaining due was to be realized by sale of the attached property which it was agreed should remain under attachment so long as the entire amount was not paid off. On this compromise being filed the case was sent to records. The first five instalments due up to 6th August 1934 were paid regularly by the appellant but default was made in the payment of the instalment due on 6th August 1935. On 6th February 1936 the decree-holder applied for sale of the attached property and stated in this application that the application was in continuation of the application of 22nd December 1928. The judgment-debtor objected on the ground that the decree was time-barred under Section 48, Civil P.C. This objection was disallowed by both the Courts below and the judgment-debtor has come to this Court in second appeal.

2. We are clearly of opinion that the Courts below were perfectly right in holding that execution of the decree is not barred under Section 48, Civil P.C. It is conceded that Section 48 bars a fresh application for execution and not an application by which a previous application for execution is revived. It is however contended that the application of 6th February 1936 was a fresh application and could not be regarded as being in continuation of the application of 22nd December 1928. We cannot accept this contention. That the property was agreed by the parties to remain under attachment until payment of the entire amount agreed upon clearly shows that it was contemplated that execution should be deemed to continue though the case may have been consigned to records and in his application of 6th February 1936 the decree-holder specifically mentioned that the application was in continuation of the previous application of December 1928. In these circumstances the application in question cannot but be deemed to be in revival of the previous application. The present case is stronger than the one which was before a Bench of this Court in Allahabad Bank Ltd. v. Sunder Lal Khattri (1936) 23 AIR Oudh 14 in which there was no express order of continuance of the attachment and yet the learned Judges held that the property which had been attached before execution was stayed on account of insolvency proceedings continued under attachment and the subsequent application must be regarded as being in continuation of the former application. A similar view was taken by another Bench of this Court in Narain Bakhsh Singh v. Shiva Bhikh (1937) 24 AIR Oudh 158. There also execution was stayed on account of the judgment-debtor's application to be declared an insolvent, but the property remained under attachment and it was held that the subsequent application was in continuation of the previous one. No question under Section 48, Civil P.C., was involved in these two cases but the point of limitation decided applies to the present case also.

3. In Girdhari Lal v. Ram Charan Lal AIR 1926 All 331 a Bench of the Allahabad High Court also held that when final completion of the proceedings in execution could not be obtained within the period provided by law by reason of causes for which the decree-holder was not responsible a subsequent appl