JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor, arising out of an application for execution of a decree passed on the 4th March, 1931. The question arising for consideration in the appeal is whether in the sixth execution started by the transferees of the original decree-holder on the 12th January, 1933, the question of limitation, so far as the application for execution was concerned, could or could not be raised by the judgment-debtor Appellant in this Court. The Courts below have answered that question in the negative, in view of the position that the judgment-debtor ought to have appeared at a previous stage of the execution proceeding, when the fifth application for execution was pending; not having done so, and having failed to raise the question of limitation, he was debarred from raising that question in the present proceeding. In regard to the previous proceeding in execution, it has to be mentioned that notice under Or. 21, r. 22 of the CPC was issued by the Court of execution, fixing the case for hearing on the 19th January, 1932. The order-sheet in the case indicates that the notice was made returnable on the 19th January aforesaid, but return was not received by that date, and the time of return of service of notice was extended, as it appears from the order-sheet, to the 26th January, 1932. On that date the application for execution was dismissed for default; the decree-holder not having taken any step in the matter of the prosecution of the proceeding in execution. It would appear thereof ore that there was no occasion for the judgment-debtor to appear and raise objection to the proceeding in execution which was dismissed for default on the day on which notice under Or. 21, r. 22, Civil Procedure Code, was ultimately made returnable by order of the Court of execution. In the circumstances stated above it could not possibly be held, as has been indicated by the Court of appeal below, that the question of limitation must be taken to have been decided against the judgment-debtor in the previous execution by necessary implication. 21, r. 22, Civil Procedure Code, was ultimately made returnable by order of the Court of execution. In the circumstances stated above it could not possibly be held, as has been indicated by the Court of appeal below, that the question of limitation must be taken to have been decided against the judgment-debtor in the previous execution by necessary implication. The principle underlying a bar sought to be pleaded by the decree-holder in the matter of raising the question of limitation by the judgment-debtor in the present proceeding must be applied on the basis of, facts and circumstances debarring him from raising the plea; and in our judgment there can be no question that the test to be applied is whether the judgment-debtor could or should have raised the plea at the previous proceeding in execution. The above principle and the test could not possibly be applied to the case of the judgment-debtor, the Appellant in this Court, who had no opportunity of raising the question of limitation at the stage when the fifth application for execution was dismissed for default on the 26th January, 1932. The appeal is allowed; the orders of the Courts below are set aside. The judgment-debtor Appellant will be allowed by the Court of execution, to raise the question of limitation involved in the proceeding now pending before the Court. The Appellant is entitled to get his costs in all the Courts. The hearing-fee in this Court is assessed at 2 gold mohurs.