Judgment C.P.Sinha, J. 1. These are appeals by the D. H. Misc. Appeal No. 116 arises out of an objection Under Sec. 47, Civil P. C. filed by the J. Ds. the objection being that the execution was barred by limitation. Appeal No. 123 of 1948 has been filed against an order Under Sec.13, Bihar Money-lenders Act. I would deal first with Misc. Appeal No. 116. The facts giving rise to this appeal can be briefly put as follows : 2. The applt. obtained a money decree on 4-10-1934. for a large sum of money. The present execution case was filed on 12-3 1946, & in the execution petn. in the column which is headed as "payment or adjustment made if any", it was mentioned that the D. H. was paid a sum of Rs. 2,500 in instalments by the former Receiver of the estate of the J. Ds. once by a cheque dated 23-2-1945 for Rs. 5,000. 3. There was a previous execution, No. 570 of 1934, & an appln. was made by the D. H. for permission to attach the properties of the J .Ds. in the hands of the Receiver who had been appointed in Execution Case So. 118 of 1933 & other execution cases. The order numbered 104, dated 19-2-1935-in Execution case No. 118 of 1933 & other cases mentions the following : "Recelvers reports dated 10-2-1935 & 11-2-1935 on the applns. of Babu Bhudev Chandra Rai (the present D. H. applt. and Maharajo Shris Chandra Nandi for permission to make the Receiver a party in execution of decree obtained by them against the J. Ds. proprietors put up and considered. As the pleader for Babu Bhudev Chandra Rai has agreed to the Receivers proposl for enlisting his name in the Sch. of creditors of the estate in the hands of the Receiver, let the name of Bhudev Chandra Rai be entered in the list of creditors in the Receivers file as prayed for by the Receiver......" It appears that after the above order was passed Execution Case NO. 570 of 1934 was dismissed for default on 22-2-1935. On 9-4-1937, the applt. filed an appln. in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the applt. 570 of 1934 was dismissed for default on 22-2-1935. On 9-4-1937, the applt. filed an appln. in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the applt. had consented to become a scheduled creditor on the report of the Receiver as he thought that there was a chance of his being repaid the amount of the decree gradually & that he was made a scheduled creditor on 19-2-1935, &, although more than two years had elapsed, the-applt. had been paid a sum of Rs. 200 only. The applt. therefore, prayed for permission to execute his decree after making the receiver a party to his execution. The receiver admitted having paid only a sum of Rs. 200 but opposed the prayer for filing the execution case on the ground that. in case the execution was taken out by the applt., the estate would suffer, & the Receiver promised to make further payments. The Ct., upon the report of the Receiver, ordered the Receiver to-pay to the applt. a sum of Rs. 1,000 within a month. It is to be noted that the Ct. which had appointed the Receiver of the J.-Ds. estate is Execution case No. 118 of 1933 & the Ct. in which the applt. had filed his appln. for execution of his decree was the same Ct., namely, the Subordinate Judges Ct. at Dhanbad. 4. The applt. again filed an appln. (Ex. B-2) on 25-3-1938, complaining of inadequate payment by the Receiver to the applt. His grievance was that he had been paid only Rs. 1200 up to the date of the making of the appln. The applt. prayed, therefore, for permission of the Ct. to execute his decree. It appears that the Ct. asked for a report from the Receiver & in the report dated 10-5-1938 the Receiver promised that he would make regular payments to the applt., &, after having considered the petn. of the applt. & the report of the Receiver, the Ct. on 16-5-1938, ordered the Receiver to make reasonable payments. From 16-5-1938, it appears the Receiver went on making payments to the applt. 5. From the statement of expenditure from 3-6-1935 to July 1940 (Ex. A) filed by the Receiver in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad. It appears that the applt. -was paid Rs. 200 in 1936-37, Rs. 1200 in 1937-38, Rs, 250 in 1938-39 & Rs. From 16-5-1938, it appears the Receiver went on making payments to the applt. 5. From the statement of expenditure from 3-6-1935 to July 1940 (Ex. A) filed by the Receiver in the Ct. of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad. It appears that the applt. -was paid Rs. 200 in 1936-37, Rs. 1200 in 1937-38, Rs, 250 in 1938-39 & Rs. 600 in 1939-40, the total amount being Rs. 2250. There is another statement of receipts & disbursements during the rnon ,h of February 1942 (Ex. A-l), & from an extract from that statement the following may be quoted : Ct. of the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad. Filed on 7-4-1942. Date 19. th February Particulars Voucher By amount paid No to Babu Bhudev 178. Chandra Rai in part payment of his decretal amount in execution case No. 570 of 34. Amount 300 Total 300 Remarks Sd. B. K. Mitra, Receiver Shiboharan Trigunait & nephew Estate." There are similar statements of receipts & disbursements during the months of April 1942, Nov. ember 1942 & February 1945 (vide Exs. A-2, A-3 & A-4) By Ex. A 2 a sum of Rs. 200 was paid, by Ex. A 3 a sum of Rs. 100 was paid & by Ex. A 4 a sum of Rs. 5000 was paid by the Receiver to the D.H. applt. & in each of these statements it is mentioned in part payment of his decretal amount; in execution case No. 570 of 1935. 6. It appear from Ex 1, order No. 830, dated 21-1 1944 (sic) in Execution case No. 118 of 1933 & other cases that another appln. was filed by the D.-H applt for permission to proceed against the Receiver in execution of his decree, which per mission was ultimately granted, & it was folld. by the prsent execution. On 23-2-1945, a petn. was filed by the D.-H. in execution case No 570 of 1934 (Ex. B) to the effect that on the date of the appln. Rs. 5,000 was paid by the J. Ds & that if further payment of Rs. 7,000 was made within two months from that date, the entire decree would be deemed to be fully satisfied if not, the D. H. would be entitled to execute the decree for the entire balance of the amount of the decree. It was prayed that this appln. be put on record of the Receivers file. 7. 7,000 was made within two months from that date, the entire decree would be deemed to be fully satisfied if not, the D. H. would be entitled to execute the decree for the entire balance of the amount of the decree. It was prayed that this appln. be put on record of the Receivers file. 7. From Ex. D, letter by Shibcharan Trigunait & others (J. Ds.) to the Ct. of the Subordinate Jndge, Dhanbad, dated 14-61945 the following may be quoted : ". . . We have no objection to your kindly discharging the present Receiver . . . We have the honour to state iurther that we guarantee to make payments to : (1) * * * (2) Babu Bbudev Chandra Rai, Rs. 7,000. (3) * * * (4) * * * " From Ex. C, a letter by the Receiver to the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, dated 18-6-1945, it appears that the Receiver also made a report that all the creditors of the estate of the J.-Ds. were paid except the present applt. who had a decree against one of the proprietors & that, according to the Receiver his due was Rs. 7,000 only & the Receiver has given in his letter a list of creditors outstanding in which he has mentioned Babu Bhudev Chandra Rai, the present applt. to be entitled to Rs. 7,000 which according to him, was the balance outstanding. 8. The facts mentioned above are all admitted. The contentions of Mr. Chatterji, for the applt., are, firstly, that the present execution case is nothing but a continuation of the former execution case, namely, Execution case No. 570 of 1934 & further that the payment made by the Receiver to the D.-H. applt. should be treated as payment made under the provisions of Sec.20, Limitation Act, that is to say, the Receiver should be taken to be an agent of the J.-Ds. within the meaning of that section. He has raised other points also, but, in my opinion, they are not necessary to be considered if any of these two contentions is found to be well founded. Mr. within the meaning of that section. He has raised other points also, but, in my opinion, they are not necessary to be considered if any of these two contentions is found to be well founded. Mr. G. C. Mukharji, on the other hand, argues that the former execution case having been dismissed, the present execution cannot be treated as continuation of the previous one & that the Receiver, who was appointed in some other execution case, could not be said to be an agent of the J.-Ds. when he nude payments to the D -H. applt. under the orders of the Ct appointing him a Receiver. 9. In my judgment the contention of the applt. that the present execution should be taken as a continuation of the previous execution is well founded. From the facts mentioned above, it is clear that, after the Ct., which was executing the decree, had accented the report of the Receiver to the effect that he would be making payments to the present D. H as well & that the applt. should not execute the decree against the estate which was in charge of the Receiver the order dismissing the execution case for default, on 22-2-1935, was a routine order only indicating that the case should not be shown as pending for administrative purposes of returns. It only meant that the record be sent to the Record Room to be recalled when necessary. In view of the previous order of the Ct. directing the Receiver to make payments to the D. H. there was nothing further to be done by the D. H. in furtherance of his execution & no step had to be taken, & if no other step had to be taken by the D. H. it cannot be said that he defaulted in carrying out certain orders of the Ct. or in taking some step in furtherance of his execution. The D. H had nothing to do & therefore, there could be no default & the order dated 22 2-35 dismissing the execution case No. 570 of 1934 for default is not happily worded. In my view what the Ct. meant was that the execution case should not be shown as pending as at that time nothing more had to be done. The D. H. & the Ct. In my view what the Ct. meant was that the execution case should not be shown as pending as at that time nothing more had to be done. The D. H. & the Ct. executing the decree were to await the result of the offer of payment made by the Receiver. That the execution case, though dismissed for default did in fact continue & was understood to be pending by the Ct. the Receiver & the D. H. is apparent from the fact that even on dates subse jueut to the date of dismissal for defa dt of the execution case on 22-2-1935, this very execution case is mentioned in subsequent documents & orders. It appears from Exs. A-l, A-2 & A-3 the statements of receipts & disbursements by the Receiver, that the amount paid by he Receiver to the present D. H. applt. was being oredited in the same execution case namely Exeoution case 570 of 1934 & this brings us to 6-11-1942 (vide Ex A- 3) & on 23-2-1945, the payment of Rs. 5,00 made by the J. Ds was certified & recorded in this very execution case which appears from the following order (order No. 854 dated 23-2-45 in Execution case No. 118 of 1933 & other cases) ; "The D. H. Execution Case No. 570 of 1934, files a petn certifying payment of Rs. 5,000 file the petn. with record " In my view Execution Case No. 572 of 1934, in spite of the order of dismissal for default, must be held to be pending & if that be so, the present execution case, which was taken out on 12-3-1946, cannot be said to be barred by time. 10 Mr. Mukharji relies upon the order of the Ct. dismissing that execution case for default on 22-2-1935. In view of certain decisions to which I am going to refer shortly, there is no merit in the objection of Mr. Mukherji. In Mohammad Amirul V/s. Mt Wazir Bibi, A. I. R. (5) 1918 Pat. 454 (48 I. C. 786) a decree was attached by the executing Ct. at the instance of the D. H. On the date fixed for orders the Ct. Mukherji. In Mohammad Amirul V/s. Mt Wazir Bibi, A. I. R. (5) 1918 Pat. 454 (48 I. C. 786) a decree was attached by the executing Ct. at the instance of the D. H. On the date fixed for orders the Ct. passed the order dismissing the exeoution case for default & after the execution case was dismissed for default, the J. D. sold the attached decree to one A. It was held by their Lordships that until the attached decree had been realised by the D. H. there was nothing further to be done by the D. H. in the execution ease, so that the executing Ct. had no jurisdiction to dismiss the case for default. It was further held that, notwithstanding the order for dismissal of the execution case, the attachment of the decree continued 1 to subsist & that, in that view of the matter, A the purchaser, had aoquired no title to the decree by his purchase against the attaching D. H. & that A had no right to exeeute the decree. In my view, although the facts are not the same, the case was similar to the case in hand. The crucial test is whether there was anything to be done by the D. H. on the pate the execution case was dismissed for default, If nothing had to be done by the D. H. his execution case cannot be dismissed for default. 11. There is another case in which a similar view has been taken in the Calcutta H. C. Sm. Sarada Sundari V/s. Jabbar Ali, 43 C. W. N. 429 : (A. I. R. (26) 1939 cal. 331). The Ct. had directed the property to be sold by the Nazir on a certain date & on that date the Nazir made a note that the D. H. was absent & on that basis the Ct. passed the order. "The D. H. takes no steps. Dismissed for default". It was held that there was no default on the part of the D. H. & the order, though in form an order of dismissal for default, was an order which should be taken in substance to be an order for removing the case from the pending file of cases & further that a subsequent appln. for execution was not barred by limitation but was a continuation of the previous appln. for execution was not barred by limitation but was a continuation of the previous appln. in C Ajodhya v. C. Srinath, 26 C. W. N. 338: (A. I. R. (8) 1921 Cal. 472) there was also a similar case where the execution case was dismissed for default, but the Ct. held, on facts that there was in fact no default on the part of the D. Hs & it was further held that the order recorded in that form must be treated as equivalent to an order for striking off the case or removing it from the file for the convenience of the Ct. I would, therefore, hold that the present appln. for exeoution is a continuation of the previous execution, namely, Execution case No. 570 of 1934 & the order of dismissal for default of that execution case must be held on the facts of this case to mean that the record of the execution case was merely consigned to the record room for the convenience of the Ct. 12. In the view which I have taken it is not necessary to consider & decide any other point which has been raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applt. or the resps. 13. The Ct. below has dismissed the execution case on the ground that the exeoution was barred by limitation upon its finding that the payments were not certified & recorded within three years of the present execution. It is now settled beyond all doubt that there is no period prescribed by the Limitation Act within which the D. H. has to certify payments, & this point has been conceded by Mr. Mukherji. I would accordingly hold that the execution was not barred by limitation & that it should proceed in accordance with law. The order of the Ct. below is set aside & the appeal is allowed with costs. 14. The other appeal is in respect of the valuation of the properties & was not argued at the time of hearing. It is, therefore, dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs. B.P.Sinha, J. 15 I agree.