JUDGMENT Jenkins, C.J. - In our opinion, the order from which this Appeal has been preferred is not correct. The decree of which execution is sought bears date the 20th of August 1907. Art. 182 of the Limitation Act, by which limitation in this case is governed, provides that the period for the execution of the decree is three years from the date of the decree. The date of the decree is that which is indicated in sec. 205 of the CPC of 1882 and Or. XX, r. 7 of the present Code. It is provided by this Rule that the decree shall bear date the day on which the judgment was pronounced. This is the view of the date of the decree that has been accepted by the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, and Allahabad. It is, however, urged that as the decree in this case was not stamped as required by the Court Fees Act until the 23rd of June 1911, the present applicants as claimants under Defendants Nos. 14 and 15 are outside this Rule. I fail to follow that reasoning. It appears to me that whatever the date on which the applicants or their predecessors chose to comply with the Court Fees Act, the date of the decree for the purposes of Art. 182 must be taken to be that which I have indicated. As an alternative it is suggested that the payment of the fee was a step in aid of execution. But I cannot so regard it. It was merely a proceeding for validating the decree in favour of Defendants Nos. 14 and 15, and in no sense a step in execution or in aid of execution. For these reasons, I hold that the Appeal must be allowed with costs-hearing-fee, one gold mohur.