Bapna, J.—This is an appeal against the decision of a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, dated 28th October, 1949(1). One Hukam Chand obtained a decree against Kishen Lal in Smt. 1944 for redemption of a shop. The shop was originally mortgaged by Nawal Chand Nihal Chand with Sawai Ram Samu Ram who sub-mortgaged it to Hukam Chand, and the latter mortgaged his rights in the property with Kishen Lal. The terms of the decree as passed by the Mahendraj Sabha, Udaipur, in Smt. 1944, were that on payment of Rs. 410/10/3 by Hukam Chand, the respondent Kishen Lal shall deliver possession of the property in suit to the plaintiff Hukam Chand. The decree-holder made an application thereafter that as he was not in a position to pay the mortgage money in a lump sum, the amount may be ordered to be paid by instalments but that he may be put into possession of the mortgaged property. This petition was dismissed in Smt. 1953 for default? After a lapse of nearly 50 years, Khubi Lal filed an application for exe-cution of the decree on 7.10.1947 in the Court of Munsiff Udaipur City. It was opposed on the ground of limitation by the respondents who had acquired an interest in the property from Kishen Lal. The learned Munsiff disallowed the objection and the same judgment was upheld in appeal. On the case coming before Amar Singh J. in Single Bench at Udaipur, he held the application for execution barred by time and dismissed it. Against that order, the present appeal has been filed. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on s. 48 of the Mewar Civil Procedure Code, which allowed a period of 12 years for presentation of an application of the execution of a decree passed prior to the enforcement of the Code. That provision, however, presupposes that the application was otherwise maintainable. The Law of Limitation was first introduced in Mewar in 1932 and s. 22 thereof provided a period of 6 months for presentation of an application for which no period of Limitation was provided by earlier law except in cases where longer period of limitation was available under the provisions of the Act. A government circular dated 28th August 1936 provided for filing of execution petitions within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notice. A government circular dated 28th August 1936 provided for filing of execution petitions within a period of one year from the date of publication of the notice. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the circular of 28th August 1936 had not binding force as it was not promulgated by competent legislative authority. Without expressing any opinion on the subject, it may be stated that the said circular was only an enabling one and is irrelevant since the appellant did not take any action under the same. It is conceded that no application was presented for execution of the decree within 6 months of the enforcement of the Mewar Limitation Act 1932 as provided by s. 22 of that Act. It was contended that this section was not applicable as an application for execution of the decree had already been presented in the year Samvat I944, which was dismissed for default in Samvat 1953. It was urged that accor-ding to the decisions of the Mewar High Court, an application for execution once presented continued to remain pending till the decree had been satisfied and, therefore, the order of dismissal for default in Smt. 1953 did not really amount to a rejection of the petition, but only kept the petition in abeyance till it was revived by the fresh application filed on 27th October, 1947. The learned counsel relied on certain unreported decisions of the Mewar High Court. It is unnecessary to refer to these decisions as in the present case the application was rejected in Smt. 1953, and by no stretch of imagination, it can be held in this case that the application remained pending and, therefore, continued to remain so till it was unsatisfied. The application presented by the decree holder cannot also be stated to be one for the execution of the decree, since what he prayed in that petition was for a modification of a decree so that he may be able to pay the amount of mortgage money by instalments. The correct position is that no petition for execution of decree, as passed by Mahendraj Sabha, was filed till 7th October, 1947, and in view of the existence of the provisions of s. 22 of the Limitation Act, such application should have been presented within 6 months of the enforcement of that Act. The correct position is that no petition for execution of decree, as passed by Mahendraj Sabha, was filed till 7th October, 1947, and in view of the existence of the provisions of s. 22 of the Limitation Act, such application should have been presented within 6 months of the enforcement of that Act. It was brought to our notice that in the Mewar Limitation Act only, a period of 3 years is allowed for filing, an application for execution of a decree from the date of the decree, and that clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 appealing in Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act did not find a corresponding place in Article 29 of the Mewar Limitation Act. It may be so, and may cause hardship in certain cases but it does not affect the appellant in any way. This appeal has no force, and is dismissed with costs.