JUDGMENT K. Sankaran, C.J. 1. Judgment - debtor is the appellant. The only question is whether the present execution petition is barred by limitation. The decree holder maintains that it should be deemed to be a continuation of the earlier execution petition filed on 13-2-1115. The question whether it was judicially disposed off was directed to be considered by the lower court when the question came up for consideration in A. S. 100/1955. Now the lower court has found that the earlier E. P. was not judicially disposed off. This view is correct and calls for no interference. There was no posting by the Judge to 17-3-1115. On that date the order to pay process fee on or before the specified date was only a ministerial direction by the office. It was for non compliance of that direction that the E. P. was dismissed on 28-3-1115. The decree holder had no notice nor could he have reasonably known about the direction made on 17-3-1115. Thus the disposal was only ministerial and the E. P. must be deemed to be pending. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.