JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. On the 14th March, 1901, a decree was passed by a Rent Court in favour of the appellants for Rs. 156-14-9, On the 13th March, 1904, the appellants applied to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the movable property of their judgment-debtors. In their application they erroneously entered the decretal amount as Rs. 256-14-9. Execution issued as prayed. Movable property was attached, but only a small portion of the judgment-debt was realized. 2. On the 22nd August, 1904, the decree-holders presented an application to realize the balance of the decretal amount by, attachment and sale of immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtore. In this application they referred to their previous application of the 13th March, 1904, and alleged that the judgment-debtors had concealed most of their movable property. The judgment-debtors objected that this second application was beyond time. The Collector repelled this objection, but on appeal the learned District Judge sustained it. The decree-holders come here in second appeal. No plea has been raised before me as to whether an appeal lay to the District Judge and I do not therefore consider that question. In my judgment the decision of the learned District Judge is right. It appears from serial No. 47 of the 4th Schedule of the N.W.P. Tenancy Act (No. II of 1901), that where the amount of a decree does not exceed Rs. 500, the period of limitation for an application to execute the decree is three years from the date of the final decree in the case. It is contended that the application of the 22nd August, 1904, was an application in continuance of the previous application of the 13th March, 1904. In my opinion it cannot be so regarded. All that the decree-holders had asked for in the first application was the attachment of such movable property as they might point out; that application had been granted. In my opinion the application to attach immovable property must be treated as a fresh application to execute the decree in a manner different from that asked for in the previous application, and it was, when presented, barred by limitation. The ruling in Cheraihi Amma v. Raman Nair,[1906] 15 M.L.J.R. 243, though not exactly on all fours, supports this view. The object of the Legislature evidently was to expedite the execution of decrees. 3. The ruling in Cheraihi Amma v. Raman Nair,[1906] 15 M.L.J.R. 243, though not exactly on all fours, supports this view. The object of the Legislature evidently was to expedite the execution of decrees. 3. The appellants waited until the statutory period was on the point of expiring before they took any steps whatever to realize their money and they have themselves to thank for the result.