JUDGMENT M.C. Ghose, J. - This is an appeal by the decree-holders in an execution case. The decree is dated 4th June, 1930. The decree-holders' case is that they filed an execution petition on 25th May, 1933, duly signed and verified by themselves, that a notice under Or. 21, r. 22, C. P. C. was served upon the judgment-debtor and thereafter on 14th September, 1933, a further notice was served upon the judgment-debtor to show cause why certain debts due to him should not be attached. Then the judgment-debtor appeared and argued that the decree-holders' case was barred by limitation inasmuch as the petition of execution was not duly filed by an authorised pleader. It appears that the pleader who apparently acted on behalf of the decree-holders did not file a vakalatnama on the day when the petition was filed. The omission was noticed by the Court on 14th November, 1933. On that day a vakalatnama duly stamped was filed but the pleader again omitted to write his acceptance on the back of it. This omission was made good on 19th May, 1934, with the permission of the Court. On these facts the Courts below have dismissed the Plaintiffs' case as barred by limitation. Upon hearing the learned Advocates on both sides, it appears to me that the petition of execution filed on 25th May, 1933, was duly signed and verified by the decree-holders themselves. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong in that petition and the record shows that it was duly accepted by the Court and the Court proceeded to act upon it. The Court issued notices under Or. 21, r. 22, C. P. C. and again issued a further notice why certain property should not be attached. The only defect in the matter was that the pleader acting for the parties had omitted to file a vakalatnama. For this omission it does not appear right in the circumstances that it should be held that the petition itself was wrong. The argument of the Appellants is correct that the petition was duly filed on the 25th May, 1933, and duly acted upon by the Court and the case is not barred by limitation. 2. The appeal is allowed with costs in all Courts--hearing fee one gold mohur.