Wanchoo, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Mahant Gangadas in an execution matter, and arises in the following circumstances:
(2.) THE appellant filed an application on the 24th of July, 1951, for execution of his decree against the respondent. THE judgment debtor objected to the execution of the decree, and raised a number of points. One of the points raised by him was that in view of sec. 48 Civil Procedure Code, the decree could not be executed as more than 12 years had passed after the decree had been passed. THE court below accepted this contention and dismissed the execution application. THE other points were not decided. THEreupon, the decree-holder appealed to this Court. while this appeal was pending, Act XX of 1955 amending the Code of Civil Procedure in this State and inserting sec. 48 A therein came into force, This Act was retrospective in operation, and applied to execution proceedings of this kind, and saved them from the application of sec.48 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it stood. This appeal came before one of us sitting singly, and was referred to a Division Bench for decision as two points about the validity of Act XX of 1952 were raised on behalf of the respondent. Those points were- (1) Whether the bill had been reserved for the assent of the President as required by the Constitution, and (2) Whether the Rajpramukh had prepared this bill and reserved it for consideration of the President before the 18th March, 1952, on which date the legislature was summoned in Rajasthan. A notice was issued to the learned Advocate General on these points, and the relevant Secretariat record relating to the bill which resulted in Act XX of 1952 has been shown to us. We find there that the bill was prepared long before the 18th of March, 1952, and was reserved by the Rajpramukh, for the assent of the President on the 15th of March, 1952. The President' assent was made on the 14th of April, 1952. Under these circumstances, the constitutional provisions were complied with in the matter of the enacting of this law, and the whole procedure so far as the Rajpramukh was concerned was over on the 15th of March, 1952, before a notification was issued on the 18th of March summoning the legislature. There is therefore no force in the two points raised on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent agrees that if Act XX of 1952 is valid, it is retrospective and would save this execution from being hit by sec.48 of the Civil Procedure Code. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the appeal should be allowed. However, as the lower court's decision was not wrong when it was given, we think that parties should bear their own costs of this Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the court below, and send the case back for further consideration and decision of other points raised by the judgment-debtor. Parties will bear their own costs of this Court. Costs of the lower court will abide the order of that Court. ;