JUDGMENT : Burkitt, J.:— This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, reversing an order of the Munsif of that district which had rejected the respondent's application for execution of a decree. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows:— The decree-holder, one Jwala Prasad, obtained a simple money decree on the 25th of July, 1898. An application was made for execution of that decree, but with it we have on concern in this appeal. A second application was made on the 20th of January, 1899, and in pursuance of this application, the judgment-debtor was arrested. He applied under the insolvency provisions of the Code to he declared an insolvent in March, 1899, and was so declared on the 27th of April of the same year. The District Judge who passed that order, directed that the debts mentioned in the petition should be entered in a schedule to be prepared under section 352 of the Code but while declaring the applicant to be an insolvent he did not appoint any receiver of the property nor did he in so many words declare the insolvent to be discharged. As a matter of fact, nothing more appears to have been done. The proceedings in the Judge's Court were slovenly in the extreme. No schedule of debts was drawn up under section 352. In consequence of these insolvency proceedings the application of the 20th of January, 1899, was struck off the file of pending execution applications on 31st of May, 1899. On the 18th of January, 1902, the decree-holder, Jwala Prasad, applied to the Munsif for execution of the decree by attaching property belonging to the judgment-debtor. On objection taken on behalf of the judgment-debtor the application was disallowed on the 10th of May 1902, the Munsif holding that he was incompetent to entertain an application for execution of a decree against the property of a person who had been declared to be an insolvent by the District Judge, He therefore rejected the application for execution. His order thereupon has become final, as no appeal was taken from it. The present application for execution was made on the 20th of August 1903, and it was made to the Munsif, who in his judgment discussed some question of limitation and rejected the application as being time barred. His order thereupon has become final, as no appeal was taken from it. The present application for execution was made on the 20th of August 1903, and it was made to the Munsif, who in his judgment discussed some question of limitation and rejected the application as being time barred. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge the decision of the Munsif as to the limitation question was overruled, and the case was remanded under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure for decision on the merits. In our opinion no question of limitation arises for decision in this case. 2. When it was decided by the Munsif on the 10th of May 1902, that he had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for execution of the decree passed against the judgment debtor, Nabi Muhammad, it was for the decree-holder, if he considered that decision to be wrong, to have applied against it. He refrained from appealing, and the consequence is that that decision has now become final. Consequently we have before us an issue as to his incompetency to hear an application for execution of this decree decided by the Munsif on the 10th May 1902, against this applicant. We have the Munsif's decision on that issue now become filial ‘inter partes’ in the absence of an appeal, and we have now another application to the same Court to execute the same decree against the same judgment-debtor in the face of the final decision by the Munsif that his Court had no power to entertain such an application. It looks almost as if this were an attempt under the disguise of a fresh application in execution to obtain from the Munsif a review or a rehearing of his previous decision. That in our opinion cannot be done. The provisions of section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure are clearly applicable to such a state of facts. We are of opinion that the application of the 20th of August, 1903, when presented to the Court of the Munsif was presented to a tribunal which by reason of its former decision was incompetent to hear it. Therefore for these reasons, and without entering into any question of limitation, which under the circumstances we consider immaterial we allow this appeal. Therefore for these reasons, and without entering into any question of limitation, which under the circumstances we consider immaterial we allow this appeal. We set aside the order of remand of the Subordinate Judge, and we restore the order of the Munsif rejecting the application with costs in all Courts.