Newaskar, J. - (1.)THE only question raised in this second appeal on behalf of the Appellants is that execution petition No. 369 of 1943 -44 filed by the decree -holder in the Court of First Munsif Court Darbar Dhar is barred by Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure having been filed more than 12 years from the date of the decree.
The point put forward on behalf of the Appellants is that the decision of the highest Court on a revision petition filed will not be 'the date of the decree' within the meaning of Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure and reliance in this connection is placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court reported in - 'Nagalinga Chetty v. Srinivasa Iyengar' : AIR 1941 Mad 477 (A).

(2.)THE fact of the present case are as follows: In Civil Suit No. 15 of 1919 -20 a decree was passed in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1556 -12 -9 and interest on 12 -1 -1921. Against this decision an appeal vas preferred. This was appeal No. 14 of 1920 -21. This appeal was disposed of on 25 -7 -1922. In this the decree of the lower Court was confirmed with a slight modification.
Against this decision second appeal was preferred in the High Court of Dhar. This was Civil Second Appeal No. 3 of 1922 -23. It was dismissed with costs 6 -3 -1923. Thereafter a petition for revision was flied in the Dhar Darbar on 21 -1 -1924. It was finally disposed of on 2 -10 -1941.

The Plaintiff decree holder thereafter filed execution petition on 15 -12 -1941. This was dismissed for default on 29 -4 -1942. Fresh application for execution was filed on 26 -5 -1944.

(3.)TO this application several objection were raised on behalf of the judgment -debtor including one regarding the execution petition being barred under Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure. The Executing Court overruled all these objection and ordered the execution to proceed.
;