Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a decree-holder's appeal against an appellate order of the District Judge, Alwar holding that his execution application was barred by limitation under Art. 182.
(2.) RAMESHWAR Dayal obtained a final decree for sale against Allah Bux in a mortgage suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,849/- on 29. 4. 49 Allah Bux migrated to Pakistan and became an evacuee. Under the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance 1949 the mortgaged property vested in the Custodian and could not be proceeded against in view of the provision of sec. 17 of the Ordinance. The decree-holder accordingly filed a claim before the Deputy Custodian Alwar with regard to the decretal amount on 29. 8. 49 against the property of Allah Bux which had vested in the Custodian. This claim was finally rejected on 28. 2. 55. It may be mentioned here that the property in suit was declared to be evacuee property on 31. 5. 54. One Yogesh Chandra who claimed to be in adverse possession of property filed an appeal against that order and the case was remanded. The property was again declared to be evacuee property on 14. 3. 55. This order was confirmed by the Custodian on 4. 10. 55. Yogesh Chandra filed a revision application before the Custodian General. This revision application was allowed on the ground that under sec. 7-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 no property could be declared to be evacuee property on or after 7th May, 1954. It appears that the attention of the learned Custodian General was not drawn to the proviso to that section. Be that as it may there is no order of any competent court or competent authority to show that Yogesh Chandra has any interest in the property. An application has been moved on his behalf for permission to intervene in this appeal. This application is accordingly rejected. An application for execution was preferred in the civil court on 12. 3. 56 and exclusion of the period from 29. 8. 49 to 28. 2. 55 was sought under sec. 15 of the Limitation Act. Both the courts below held that this period could not be excluded. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that sec. 15 Limitation Act was not applicable as the execution of the decree had not been stayed by any order of a civil court. This view is erroneous. Sec. 15 (1) of the Limitation Act is applicable where the execution has been stayed by the order of any competent authority. It will apply even where the execution has been stayed by statute. In this connection the follow-ing cases may be referred to - S. K. Mansang Vs. S. R. Kasalchand (1), Radhey Shyam Vs. Ibne Hasan (2), Hulas Singh Vs. Data Ram and Umrao Vs. Beharilal (4 ). But the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance as well as the Administration of Evacuee Property Act provided alternative remedy to a decree-holder for realising the decretal amount by preferring a claim was preferred by the decree-holder before the Deputy Custodian Alwar on 29. 8. 49. It was rejected on 28. 2. 55. The proper provision to be applied in the present case is therefore that contained in sec. 14 of the Limitation Act. The decree-holder is entitled to exclude the time taken in prosecution his claim before the Deputy Custodian under this section. The expression "civil proceeding in a court" is not confined to proceedings before a civil court. It is applicable to civil proceedings before other Tribunals also. In Kalu Ram Vs. Th. Phulsingh (5) it was held that the provision contained in sec. 14 of the Limitation Act was applicable to proceedings before the Court of Wards. In Ramdutt Vs. E. D. Sassoon & Co. (6) sec. 14 of the Limitation Act was held applicable to proceedings before the arbitrators. Excluding the time taken in prosecuting the proceedings before the Deputy Custodian the execution application filed on 12. 3. 56 is within limitation under Art. 182. I accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the decisions of the courts below. The executing court should now proceed expeditiously with the execution of the decree in accordance with law. .;