The period for executing a decree runs from the date of the appellate decree, even when there is an appeal regarding part of the decree.

1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the application for execution of the decree in O. S. No. 92 of 1949, on the file of the Sub-Court Tuticorin is barred by limitation. The suit was laid against the respondent and his wife Arunachalathammal as the second defendant for recovery of certain monies due on dealings, which the appellant had with the former. Arunachalathammal was impleaded as a guarantor. On 24/11/1951, the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, Passed a decree for a sum of Rs.34,479-6-2 and costs, against the appellant dismissing the suit against Arunachalathammal with costs.
As no statement of costs was filed tin behalf of Arunachalathammal, those costs were not taxed. Nevertheless, the appellant filed A. S. No. 940 of 1952 in this court, challenging the validity of the decree in so far as it directed costs to be Paid by the appellant to Arunachalathammal. That appeal was dismissed on 14/11/1956. In the meanwhile, the appellant had applied on 31/08/1954 for execution of the decree against the respondent. That application was dismissed on 08/02/1955. On 04/03/1958, the appellant filed an execution application for realisation of the amount due under the decree by arrest of the respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application as barred by limitation. Hence this appeal.

2. As the execution petition, out of which this appeal arises, was filed more than three years after the date of the final order in E. P. No. 64 of 1954, the decree - holder could not invoke the Provisions of Art. 182(5) in his favour.

3. Before the learned Subordinate Judge, it was contended that the appropriate Article to apply in the present case would be Art. 182(2) of the Limitation Act , and, as the appeal against the decree for cost in favour of Arunachalathammal was dismissed only on 14-11-56, the present application was claimed to be in time. This contention was rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge for the reason that the respondent, who was the first defendant in the suit, was not concerned in the appeal, the appeal being restricted to the decree in favour of the second defendant alone. Support sought for this view in the decision of a Full Bench reported in Srivaramachari v. Anjaneya Chetty , 1951-2 Mad. LJ 245 (AIR 1951 Mad. 962) (FB), where it was held that the term "appeal" referred to in Art. 182 (2) of the Limitation Act should receive a restricted meaning, and would mean only the decree of the appellate court which was sought to be executed.
As stated earlier, the claim in the present case was against two defendants. There was a single decree, though such decree comprised two parts, (1) a direction in favour of the appellant against the respondent for payment of Rs.34,479-6-2, and (2) a direction in favour of the second defendant for costs to be paid by the appellant. It was the latter part of the decree that was the subject - matter of the appeal to this Court.

4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the appeal to this Court should be held to be from the decree which is now executed. In Satish Chandra Choudhuri v. Girish Chandra Chakravarti , ILR (47) Cal. 813 : (AIR 1920 Cal. 840 (2)), a suit was laid to recover a sum of money against two persons. The suit was decreed against one of them, while it was dismissed against the other. There was an appeal by the plaintiff in regard to the latter portion of the decree, which ultimately failed. A question arose whether the time for execution of the decree against the former should run from the date of the original decree itself or from the date of the dismissal of the appeal, with which the judgment - debtor sought to be proceeded against was not concerned.
It was held that, where an appeal had been preferred against a decree, the period o