JUDGMENT : Knox, J. The learned Judge has overlooked the fact that one of the decree-holders was a minor and entitled to the benefit of section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877. It has been held in the Full Bench case of Zamir Hasan v. Sundar, [1900] I.L.R., 22 All., 199 that this section applies even where some only and not all of the judgment-creditors are affected by a legal disability. 2. The principle of this ruling was applied in a case exactly on all fours with this, namely, E.S.A. No. 279 of 1902, Liladhar v. Chaturbhuj. decided by a Bench of this Court on the 10th of May, 1903, [Liladhar v. Chaturbhuj, S.A. No. 279 of 1902], This appeal must succeed. We allow it with costs, set aside the orders of both the lower Courts with costs, and remand the case through the lower appellate Court to the Court of first instance, with directions to re-admit the application to its file of pending applications and dispose of it according to law. Future costs will abide the result, BLAIR AND BANERJI, JJ. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the application made by the decree-holders on the 18th September, 1902, for execution of the decree obtained by them on the 28th June, 1893, was or was not time-barred. It appears that the first application for execution was made on the 18th June, 1896. The proceedings which took place in pursuance of that application were stayed by an injunction obtained in a suit brought by the judgment-debtors to have the decree set aside on the ground of fraud. It is not necessary to discuss the various points which were raised before us, as there is one which in our judgment, is sufficient for the disposal of the appeal, and it is this. One of the decree-holders, Chaturbhuj, was a minor at the date of the decree and is still a minor. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Zamir Hasan v. Sundar (I.L.R., 22 All., 199) that section 7 of the Limitation Act applies even where some only and not all of the judgment-creditors are effected by a legal disability. That was a case in which an application was made by some minors for the execution of a decree obtained jointly by them and a person who was of age. That was a case in which an application was made by some minors for the execution of a decree obtained jointly by them and a person who was of age. The learned Judges approved of the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Gobind Ram v. Sital, I.L.R., 20 Bom., 383, that the fact of one of the decree-holders being a minor, saved the operation of limitation in favour of all the decree-holders when the application for execution was made by a minor decree-holder. The principle of that case fully applies to this case and is conclusive against this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.