Judgement Appeal from an appellate order of the High Court (July 20, 1911) affirming an order of Fletcher J. (May 13, 1910). The sole question for determination in the appeal was whether or not an application made on July 3, 1909, was barred by limitation. By a registered mortgage dated January 25, 1886, the first respondent mortgaged to Amlook Chund Parruck (represented in the appeal by the appellants) his share in certain properties in Calcutta. The mortgagor made default in repayment and the mortgagee instituted a suit upon the mortgage in the High Court. In that suit a decree was made by consent on December 16, 90 Law Rep. 42 Ind. App. 88 ( 1914- 1915) Munna Lal Parruck V. Sarat C hunder Mukerji 191 1886, for payment of Rs.25,832 in six months, with a provision that in default of payment the mortgaged properties should be sold and that the mortgagor should pay any deficiency which should arise upon the sale. In 1903 the first respondent sold his interest in one of the mortgaged properties to a purchaser who resold it to the second respondent. On July 3, 1909, the mortgagee filed an application to the High Court for an order joining the second respondent as a party to the suit, and for an order that he (the mortgagee) might be at liberty to sell the mortgaged property in pursuance of the decree of December 16, 1886. The application was heard by Fletcher J. and dismissed. The learned judge was of opinion that the portion of the decree of December 16, 1886, which ordered the mortgagor to pay Rs.25,832 was the real and substantial part of it, that the application was in substance one to enforce the decree, and that it was- consequently barred by art. 180 of Sched. II. of the Limitation Act, 1877, since it was not made within twelve years from June 15, 1887. In his view the application was not one for an order for sale under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the authorities relied upon by the plaintiff did not apply. 180 of Sched. II. of the Limitation Act, 1877, since it was not made within twelve years from June 15, 1887. In his view the application was not one for an order for sale under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the authorities relied upon by the plaintiff did not apply. The Appellate Bench of the High Court (Sir L. Jenkins C.J. and Woodroffe J.) affirmed the order of Fletcher J. The learned Chief Justice said that, even assuming (as contended by the plaintiff) that the decree of December 16, 1886, was a decree under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it did not contemplate a further decree, but merely an order for sale under s. 89 of that Act. In his view the application was either a proceeding in execution or a proceeding for judicial relief under a decree, and art. 183 of Sched. I. of the Limitation Act, 1908) corresponding to art. 180 of Sched. II. of the Act of 1877), applied. The learned Chief Justice was also of opinion that if the decree had been an incomplete one, a further decree being required, then art. 181 of the Act of 1908 would have barred the applica tion, since the difficulties of applying the corresponding article of the Act of 1877 to an application for an order to sell had been removed in the case of art. 181 by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Woodroffe J. agreed. The proceedings upon the appeal to the High Court are reported at I. L. R. 38 Calc. 913. Jenkins, K.C., and Sir W. Garth, for the appellants. The Courts below were wrong in holding that the application was one " to enforce a decree." The decree of December 16, 1888, was merely a preliminary mortgage decree which could not be enforced until an order absolute had been made. The application was really one for an order absolute for sale under s. 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Decisions of the Calcutta High Court support the view that an application of that character is not barred by any limitation provision. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 85,86,87, 88, and 89, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order xxxiv., rr. 4 and 5, were referred to. Decisions of the Calcutta High Court support the view that an application of that character is not barred by any limitation provision. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 85,86,87, 88, and 89, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order xxxiv., rr. 4 and 5, were referred to. [_De Gruyther, K.C., who appeared with Homer Macklin for the respondents, drew attention to Batuk Nath v. Munni Dei (( 1914) L. R. 41 Ind. Ap. 104.) and Abdul Majid v. Jewahir Lal. (( 1914) I. L. R. 36 Allah. 350.) after some discussion, the appellants counsel conceded that these decisions were fatal to their argument.] The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. Their Lordships see no reason for interfering with the decisions of the Courts below, and they will humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss the appeal with costs. 90 Law Rep. 42 Ind. App. 88 ( 1914- 1915) Munna Lal Parruck V. Sarat C hunder Mukerji