JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. In our opinion there is nothing in this appeal. We are informed that this appeal is brought against an order passed in execution of a decree, Such, however, is not the case. The appellants improperly laid their hands on certain funds which were in the custody of the court, viz., certain debts due to the firm of Sundar Dass, debts, which under an order of the court had been attached before judgment in a suit instituted by the respondent, Surajmal and others. The ground on which the appellants collected those debts, was an assignment to them by the firm of Sundar Dass. When, in execution of their decree, Surajmal and others asked for sale of those debts, the appellants objected putting forward their own purchase. That objection was over-ruled on 29th January, 1898. Nevertheless and in spite of the fact that those debts were in the custody of the court, the appellants proceeded to collect some of them and admittedly have collected a considerable amount. In so doing, the appellants have undoubtedly acted in contempt of Court. 2. When therefore, the respondents called upon the court to compel the appellants to disgorge the money and to pay it into count under the penalty, in case of refusal, of being arrested, the application, which the respondents made in that behalf, was not an application for execution of their decree, but an application to the court to exercise its inherent powers in compelling the appellants to disgorge and pay into court money which they had improperly collected in defiance of the court's order. To such an application the limitation rules provided for applications to execute decrees are not applicable. The action taken by the court was proper under the circumstances. It is further contended that the respondent's proper remedy was to bring a suit against these appellants. To that contention we cannot accede. It would have been, we think, an act of injustice and a procedure, not warranted by the Code of Civil Procedure, if we were to tell these decree-holders, who were kept out of their money for so many years, that their only remedy was to bring a regular suit against Godu Ram, Ram Lal and their fellow wrong-doers. We think the decision of the court below is perfectly right. We dismiss this appeal with costs.