M. C. Desai, J. - (1.) The respondent obtained a decree against the appellant on 18-12-1951 and applied for execution for the first time on 25-2-1955. It is not known what happened to the execution application. On 26-10-56 it made a second application for execution of the decree when the appellant raised the objection that it was barred by time because the first execution application itself was barred by time. The period of limitation for execution of a decree, according to the Limitation Act Article 182, is three years commencing on the date of the decree. According to this provision, the first application was barred by time. But with effect from November 30, 1954 the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act of 1954 came into force whereby the period of limitation for execution of the decree was enhanced to six years. The law came into force after the period of limitation for execution of the decree had started running but before execution became time-barred. The respondent relied upon this amendment and contended that by virtue of it, its first execution application was within time. The objection of the appellant was overruled by the courts below and he filed this second appeal which has been referred by Mr. Justice Sri Narain Sahai to a Bench for an authoritative decision. It is settled by the authorities of this Court that when a period of limitation is extended after it has started running and before it expires, the extended period will apply. The appellant however relies upon the following provision of Section 3 of the Amendment Act: "(2) Where by reason of any amendment herein made in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or any other enactment mentioned in Col. 2 of the Schedule, the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or appeal has been modified, or a different period of limitation will hereafter govern any such suit or appeal, then, notwithstanding any amendment so made or the fact that the suit or appeal would now lie in a different Court, the period of limitation applicable to a suit or appeal, as aforesaid, in which time has begun to run before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be the period which but for the amendment so made would have been available." This provision does not help him at all for the simple reason that it deals with periods of limitation for suits and appeals and not with periods of limitation for applications for execution of decrees. Sri Kirti conceded that the authorities are against the view that a suit or appeal includes an application for execution of a decree. He did not contended that the phrase "any suit or appeal" includes an application for execution of a decree. Consequently, in the case of an application for execution of a decree the old period of limitation will not necessarily apply and it may be governed by the amended period of limitation. Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 3 was not relied upon at all and it does not deal with the matter under consideration. Accordingly, we hold that the period of limitation in the instant case was governed by the law contained in the Amendment Act and that the first execution application was within time. There is no force in this second appeal and it is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.;