JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Bhagalpur, dated the 2nd February 1906. The facts of the case are these:-- The opposite party, Respondent, obtained a decree for wasilut against the present Appellant. The present Appellant had made a claim to certain property under sec. 335, C. P. C., and had got possession of the property. The present Respondent had therefore to sue for possession and prove possession against the present Appellant. He did so and obtained an order for wasilut: so that he was entitled to wasilut from the date of delivery of possession in the sec. 335 case up to the date of recovery of possession in his suit. There was an appeal to the District Judge; but before the District Judge there was no discussion as to the question of wasilut. The appeal there was only as to the boundaries of the plots of which the present Respondent was to recover possession. Now, the present Respondent has applied for execution of his decree for wasilut; and the contention of the Appellant is that the lower Appellate Court's decree does not give him wasilut. It is further urged that when the present Respondent did apply for wasilut he did not prosecute his application with diligence, and it was dismissed for default on the 25th January 1904; so that the present application of the 13th April 1904 is barred by limitation. The learned District Judge has overruled both these contentions and ordered that execution should proceed. 2. The judgment-debtor in the wasilut decree again appeals and urges that the District Judge is wrong. 3. We think, however, that there is no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned District Judge. It is clear that the present Respondent did obtain a decree for wasilut and that decree was never interfered with nor was its correctness ever impugned. The lower Appellate Court, through inadvertence did not specially refer to the question of wasilut: but it is evident, beyond question, that the decree for wasilut was never meant to be interfered with. We think, therefore, that the Respondent is entitled to execute his decree for wasilut 4. The lower Appellate Court, through inadvertence did not specially refer to the question of wasilut: but it is evident, beyond question, that the decree for wasilut was never meant to be interfered with. We think, therefore, that the Respondent is entitled to execute his decree for wasilut 4. Then, it is urged that as the application for ascertainment of mesne profits was dismissed on the 25th January 1904 and he did not apply for a fresh ascertainment of mesne profits till the 13th April 1904, his application is barred by limitation, because, it is urged, he was bound to apply within 30 days of the order of dismissal of the application, dated the 25th January 1904. The learned District Judge has, however, pointed out that the facts of the case of Ram Kishore Ghose v. Gopi Kantha Saha, I. L. R. 28 Cal. 242 (1900) are on all fours with those of the present case; and he says:--"It is very plainly stated in the judgment of the Honorable Judges that the practice has always been to treat applications to determine mesne profits as applications for execution of the decree and that the striking off of such cases does not finally decide them or prevent the decree-holder from making a further application for the determination of mesne profits. I cannot agree in the distinction drawn by the Subordinate Judge between dismissal for default and striking off." 5. We see no reason to dissent from this view: nor do we consider that there is any substantial distinction between an order striking off an application and one dismissing it for default. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs: the hearing fee is assessed at five gold mohurs.