JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. 1. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the application for execution of the decree, dated the 9th September, 1897, made by the decree-holder on the 4th of September, 1903, was time barred or not. The application would be time-barred unless he could invoke in aid a previous application made by him on the 4th September, 1900. That application was made within three years of the date of the decree, and if it was an application in accordance with law, it would afford to the decree-holder a new start for the computation of limitation under article 179 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. The court below has held that his application of the 4th of September, 1900, was not an application in accordance with law and could not therefore save the operation of limitation. It appears that in that application the decree-holder applied for attachment of immoveable property but he did not append to the application a description of the property sought to be attached, and a specific cation of the judgment-debtor's interest therein as required by section 237. 2. The application was thus defective and the court in pursuance of section 245 of the Code of Civil Procedure might have rejected it or caused it to be amended then and there or within a time fixed by it. It adopted the last course and granted to the decree-holder four days time to amend the application. The decree-holder applied for an extension of time and this application being granted, he, on the 14th of September, 1900, filed an inventory of the property in accordance with the provisions of section 237 which was accepted by the court. This inventory cured the defect which existed in the application for execution and in fact amounted to an amendment of it. It is true that this amendment took place after expiry of the period of limitation, but it has been held by this Court in Jiwat Dube v. Kali Ckaran, [1896] I.L.R., 20 All., 478 following the ruling in Ajudhia Ram v. Muhammad Munir, [1893] A.W.N., 112 and by the Calcutta High Court in Fuzloor Ruhman v. Altaf Hossen, [1884] I.L.R., 10 Cal., 541 that an amendment such as this would relate back to the date of the preceding application. Consequently the application of the 4th of September, 1900, must be deemed to be an application in accordance with law which saves the operation of limitation. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the court below with costs in this Court and in the Court below and restore that of the Court of first instance. Costs in this Court will-include fees on the higher scale.