JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of an application under section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the question we have to determine is whether the application is barred by limitation as held by the Courts below. The decree-holder, appellant, obtained a decree for sale under section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act on the 29th of June, 1896, against three persons. The date fixed in that decree for payment of the mortgage money was the 20th of September, 1896. Two of the judgment debtors submitted to the decree which as against these became final. Only one of the judgment-debtors, namely Ganga Prasad, preferred an appeal and prayed for the exemption of his one-third share of the mortgaged property from liability under the decree. He obtained a decree from the Court of first appeal on the 9th of July, 1897. The decree-holder lodged a second appeal in this Court, and this Court on the 3rd May, 1900, dismissed his appeal and affirmed the decree of the lower Court exempting Ganga Prasad's share from liability. On the 1st of September, 1902, the present application for an order absolute was made, the prayer being for the sale of two-third of the mortgaged property in respect of which the decree of the Court of first instance had become final. The Court of first instance held this application to be time-barred, and dismissed it. The lower appellate Court having affirmed the order of the Court of first instance, this appeal has been preferred by the decree-holder. The contention raised on his behalf is that under the second paragraph of the third column of Article 179 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act the application is within time, as it was made within three years from the date of the decree of the High Court. In our judgment, Article 179 has no application to a case like this. That article would only apply to the case of decrees or orders which on the date thereof are capable of execution. A decree under section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act is not capable of execution on the date on which it is passed, and therefore Article 179 cannot apply to such a decree. 2. That article would only apply to the case of decrees or orders which on the date thereof are capable of execution. A decree under section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act is not capable of execution on the date on which it is passed, and therefore Article 179 cannot apply to such a decree. 2. In respect of a decree under section 86, namely, a decree for foreclosure, it was held in Ali Ahmad vs. Naziran Bibi, [1902] I.L.R. 24 All. 542 that an application for an order under section 87 is governed as to limitation by Article 178, and not by Article 179 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act. The same principle applies to the case of a decree under section 88, and an application under section 89. The article applicable being 178 we have to consider on what date the right of the decree-holder to make the present application accrued. As regards the two-third share now sought to be sold, it certainly accrued on the expiry of the time fixed in the decree under section 88 for payment of the, mortgage money. There was no question in the appeal, which was preferred by Ganga Prasad as to the liability of the two-third share, and there was nothing to preclude the decree-holder from applying for the sale of that share. As the date fixed for payment was the 20th of September, 1896, and the present application was nut made until the first of September, 1902, it was clearly time-barred, and the Courts below have rightly dismissed it. We dismiss the appeal with costs.