Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff decree-holder had filed a small Cause Suit based on a promissory note against the defendants. A compromise decree was passed on 21-9-1955 under which the decree amount was agreed to be paid in four instalments on 30-3-56, 30-10-56, 30-6-57 and 30-6-58. The decree holder filed his 1st execution petition on 22-8-59. Notice was ordered, but it was dismissed for default. Then the present application E.P. 389 of 1959 was filed on 20-10-59. The respondents contended that the 1st execution petition not having been filed within 3 years from the date of the 1st default the execution petition was barred. The learned Munsiff accepted the contention and dismissed the petition. 2. The view of the Munsiff is wrong. Under S.3 of Act 31/58 no application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt shall be made against any agriculturist in any court before the expiration of 6 months from the commencement of this Act. The Act came into force on 14-7-58 and no execution petition could have been filed for 6 months from that date. S.20 provides that in computing the period of limitation for an application for execution of a decree in respect of a debt the time during which the making of the application was barred under S.3 shall be excluded. So the decree holder gets the additional 6 months' time from 30-3-59 on which date the execution petition ought normally to have been filed after the first default. 3. A similar question arose in the case in Sankaran Nair v. Sankaran (1959 KLT. 7) where relying on an earlier case in 1958 KLT. 804 Kumara Pillai, J, held: "The effect of S.5 of Act V of 1954 would be that in computing the period of limitation the time during which plaintiff was prevented from filing a suit by S.3 of the Madras Ordinance, V of 1953 as well as by S.3 of the Madras Act, V of 1954 had to be excluded, that is to say, over and above the normal period of limitation the time would be extended by the periods during which the institution of the suit was prohibited by these two enactments. Plaintiff thus gets a further period of two years. Under the Madras Act 1 of 1955 the plaintiff would get the period of four months. Plaintiff thus gets a further period of two years. Under the Madras Act 1 of 1955 the plaintiff would get the period of four months. The total extension under the three enactments comes to two years and four months, and so the plaintiff had time till 14-4-1959 to file the suit. As the plaintiff filed the suit on 31-8-1957, the suit was not barred by limitation." Following this decision the execution petition filed on 22-8-59 is within time as having been filed within 6 months after 30-3-59. The order of the learned Munsiff is, therefore, set aside. The E. P. will now be restored to file to be disposed of according to law. Allowed.