Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C J - (1.)The question in this appeal is whether a decree obtained by the respondent has become barred by the law of limitation.
(2.)On the 21 September, 1932, the respondent obtained a decree against the appellants and their father for the payment of Rs. 2,832-12-0 with interest and costs. On the 22nd January, 1935, the respondent filed an application for execution in the Court of the District Judge of Kistna. This was numbered as Execution Petition No. 26 of 1935. Another creditor of the defendants had obtained a decree against them in Original Suit No. 5 of 1931 and had already applied for execution by the attachment and sale of the properties of the judgment- debtors. This application was numbered as Execution Petition No. 172 of 1932. The object of the respondent in filing Execution Petition No. 26 of 1935 was to obtain rateable distribution of the properties already attached by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 5 of 1931. He asked for an order for attachment, but added a prayer for rateable distribution. Some of the attached properties were sold in Execution Petition No. 172 of 1932 and the respondent obtained his share of the proceeds. The attachment continued in respect of the unsold properties.
(3.)On the 5 November, 1936, the District Judge passed an order in both the execution petitions closing them, the order being merely the word " closed." This was obviously done in accordance with the very bad practice which then prevailed of Courts closing petitions for execution for statistical purposes. Although the petitions were " closed " the attachment continued and continued at all times material to this appeal.