JUDGMENT Bind Basni Prasad, J. - This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar allowing the objection of the judgment-debtor and dismissing an application for the execution of the decree and an application for the preparation of a final decree for sale under O. 34, S. 5, Civil P.C. The material facts are as follows : 2. On 29th March 1933, the decree-holder obtained a preliminary decree for sale under O. 34, R. 4, Civil P.C. from the Court of Civil Judge. On 20th, November 1933, he obtained a final decree for sale under O. 34, R. 5, Civil P.C. from the same Court. In December 1933, the judgment debtor preferred an appeal to this Court against the aforesaid preliminary decree. The appeal was decided by this Court on 5th April 1938. The decree of the lower Court was modified. A decree for sale was granted for a sum of Rs. 2,500 principal and Rs. 7,074-5-9 interest. By the same decree a simple money decree was also granted for a sum of Rs. 2,500. It was directed by this Court that a fresh preliminary decree under O. 34, R. 4, Civil P.C. should be prepared. A decree was accordingly prepared in this Court. The usual six months' time upto 5th October 1938, was given for the payment of the amount found due. On 23rd January 1941, the decree-holder applied for the execution of the decree. That execution application was dismissed for default on 22nd May 1941. On 9th September 1941, another application for execution of the decree was made by the decree-holder. It is this application which is the subject of this appeal and it requires examination in detail. It may be noted that up to this stage of the proceedings the decree-holder did not make any formal application either for the amendment of the final decree dated 20th November 1933, so as to bring it in conformity with the decree of this Court, or for the preparation of a fresh final decree. 3. The application dated 9th September 1941, is in the usual form prescribed by O. 21, R. 11, Civil P.C. In the first column the numbers of the original suit and of the first appeal to this Court are given. 3. The application dated 9th September 1941, is in the usual form prescribed by O. 21, R. 11, Civil P.C. In the first column the numbers of the original suit and of the first appeal to this Court are given. In the third column the dates of the preliminary and final decrees passed by the trial Court and of the appellate decree of this Court are given. In column 7 of the amount due, viz Rs. 9,574-5-9 as entered in the preliminary decree of this Court and Rs. 1,962-9-3 on account of interest from the date of the decree of this Court to the date of the execution application, is given. The total amount claimed was Rs. 11,536-15-0. It may be mentioned here that the simple money portion of the decree passed by this Court was not sought to be executed by this application. In column 10 which is the column for stating as to the mode in which the decree is sought to be executed, the decree-holder requested that the decree should be realized by the sale of the hypothecated property. There was no prayer at all in this application that any final decree under O. 34, R. 5, Civil P.C., in conformity with the decree passed by this Court should be prepared. 4. On 24th January 1942, the decree-holder made another application supported by an affidavit. Therein it was stated that in the execution application dated 9th September 1941, the amount decreed by this Court had been given and it was thought that that was sufficient and there was no need for any formal application for the preparation of a final decree, but later on the decree holder was advised that an express prayer should be made for the drawing up of a final decree. Hence by the application dated 24th January 1942, it was requested that the final decree dated 20th November 1933, might be amended so as to bring it in accord with the preliminary decree passed by this Court. 5. It is obvious that the application dated 24th January 1942, for the preparation of the final decree in accordance with the decree of this Court was beyond three years and was clearly barred by Art. 181, Limitation Act, 1908. 5. It is obvious that the application dated 24th January 1942, for the preparation of the final decree in accordance with the decree of this Court was beyond three years and was clearly barred by Art. 181, Limitation Act, 1908. The lower Court held that the execution application dated 9th September 1941, could not be proceeded with, as no final decree existed and the application dated 24th January 1942, for the final decree being time-barred could not be granted. In the result the execution application and the application dated 24th January 1942, were dismissed and from that order the decree-holder comes in appeal. 6. It is obvious that no application for the execution of any decree can be entertained unless the executable decree exists. Now, on 9th September 1941, no final decree on the basis of the preliminary decree of this Court existed and the request of the decree-holder to execute the decree for the amount allowed by this Court on 5th April 1938, was premature. No preliminary decree for sale can be executed. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that notwithstanding the fact that there was no express request in this execution application for the preparation of a final decree, it should be treated as one containing a request to that effect and in this connection reliance is placed on Bashisht Narain Singh Vs. Ram Pukar Singh and Others, AIR 1942 Patna 343 With great respect, we do not agree with the principle laid down in that ruling. An application for the execution of a decree is an application in execution, whereas an application for the preparation of a final decree is an application in a suit. We find it difficult to treat an application made in execution as one made in a suit. Order 34, Rule 5 (3), Civil P.C., 1908, provides that there should be an application for final decree by the plaintiff. The words "in this behalf" in that rule are important and significant. There was no such application by the decree-holder within three years of the preliminary decree passed by this Court. Order 34, Rule 5 (3), Civil P.C., 1908, provides that there should be an application for final decree by the plaintiff. The words "in this behalf" in that rule are important and significant. There was no such application by the decree-holder within three years of the preliminary decree passed by this Court. When the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court was varied by this Court, the final decree dated 20th November 1933, fell to the ground and it could not be executed until it was made consistent with the preliminary decree awarded by this Court, or a fresh final decree was prepared accordingly. A perusal of the execution application dated 9th September 1941, and the preliminary decree passed by this Court will show that the decree-holder sought to execute the preliminary decree, a decree which is incapable of execution. 7. The decree-holder's own conduct shows that he had not intended to treat the application in execution dated 9th September 1941, as one for the preparation of the final decree. What was the need of the second application dated 24th January 1942, if the application dated 9th September 1941, was Sufficient for the preparation of a final decree under O. 34, R. 5, Civil P.C.? 8. We are of opinion that the view taken by the lower Court is correct, that the application dated 24th January 1942, for the preparation of the final decree is time-barred and that no execution of the decree can take place on the application dated 9th September 1941, as no final decree in accordance with the preliminary decree of this Court existed on that date. The appeal is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their costs.