Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS execution second appeal by the decree-holder has been referred to this Bench by a learned Single Judge.
(2.) THE facts which have given rise to it are these. THE appellant got a decree for Rs. 223/12/- on 15. 9. 34 which was recoverable in 12 instalments as shown in the decree. THE first execution application was presented on 19. 11. 38 which was dismissed on 12. 1. 39. THEreafter various applications for execution were made. THE last application with which we are concerned in the present case was made on 24. 4. 53. It was dismissed on 2. 5. 53 on the ground that it was barred by limitation under sec. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE lower appellate court agreed with the executing court and dismissed the appeal of the decree-holder against which the present second appeal has been filed. It may be mentioned that at the time when the decree was passed the period prescribed under sec. 48 of the Marwar Civil Procedure Code 1913 was 24 years. In 1949 two enactments were passed. By the Marwar Code of Civil Procedure 1949 (Act No. 29 of 1949) which came into force on 21. 3. 49 the Indian Civil Procedure Code was applied after adaptation. The period prescribed under sec. 48 was adapted to 24 years thus retaining the corresponding provision contained in S. 48 of the Mahwar Civil Procedure Code, 1913. Six days later Act No. 32 of 1949 came into force. This was called the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949. Sec. 3 of this Amendment Act provided that in sec. 48 of the Marwar Code of Civil Procedure for the words "twenty-four years" wherever they occur the words "twelve years" shall be substituted. Under sec. 4 of the same Act a period of grace of three years was provided from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act so that suits or applications for execution of a decree which became barred under the provisions of the Amendment Act could be instituted or made within 3 years next after the commencement of the Amendment Act, or within the period of limitation previously in force whichever period expired first. This period of grace expired on 27. 3. 52. The appellant filed an execution application during this period of grace on 4. 7. 51 which was dismissed on 23. 1. 53. On behalf of the appellant it is argued that both the Marwar Civil Procedure Code 1949 and the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949 having received the assent of His Highness the Maharaja of Jodhpur on the same day namely 2. 3. 49 the ordinary rule of interpretation that the subsequent Act overrides the previous Act should not be applied. We are unable to agree with this contention. Not only is the Marwar Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1949 a subsequent Act but the provision contained in sec. 3 of it expressly amending sec. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure and providing for a period of grace in sec. 4, makes it clear that at the time of enforcing the subsequent Act it was intended to amend the Code of Civil Procedure. The result is that the appellant can maintain the present execution application which was filed on 24. 4. 53 only in respect of those instalments which fell due on or after 24. 4. 41. The following instalments are within time - Migsar Sudi l,smt. 1998. . . . . . Rs. 20/- Migsar Sudi 1, Smt. 1999. . . . . . Rs. 20/- Baisakh Sudi 5, Smt. 1999 (Vikram S. 2000) Rs. 10/- Migsar Sudi 1, Smt. 2000. . . . . . Rs. 23/12/- Rs. 73/12/- The above instalments will carry interest at 6 per cent per annum simple from the date on which they fell due. The execution application is within time not only with regard to the above instalments but also with regard to interest falling due on them. In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the lower court is set aside. The execution shall proceed in accordance with law in respect of the sum indicated above. The judgment-debtors have not appeared to contest the appeal. The appellant shall bear his own costs. . ;