JUDGMENT Gokul Prasad, J. - This is an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. The decree-holder is the appellant. He obtained a simple decree for money u/s 90 of the Transfer of Property Act on the 10th of January, 1916. The first application for execution was made on the 14th of August, 1917, and certain property was attached and later on all costs for sale were deposited. On the 28th of January, 1918, one Musammat Amir Bibi put in an objection claiming that the property was hers. On the 16th of February, 1918, the decree-holder put in his application to summon witnesses in reply to the objection filed by Musammat Amir Bibi in which the 23rd of February, 1918, had been fixed for disposal. The property was released from attachment and the application for execution was dismissed in default. On the 14th of November, 1920, the present application for execution was made and the judgment-debtor promptly pleaded limitation. The first Court dismissed the judgment-debtor's objection and directed execution to proceed. On appeal, however, the learned District Judge had referred to a large number of rulings and dismissed the present application as being barred by time. In this the learned Judge was obviously in error. The application by the decree-holder on the 16th of "February, 1918, to summon witnesses to contest the objection put in by Musammat Amir Bibi was a step in aid of execution and a fresh period of limitation started from that date (see the case of Muhammad Siddiq Khan v. Misree Lal(1)). The application for execution was therefore within time. I allow the appeal set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts including in this Court fees on the higher scale. The first Court will now proceed to execute the decree according to law.