JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The decree holder is the Appellant. He obtained an exparte decree on 21-12-1955. Title Suit No. 222 of 1951 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur. The Respondent filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC in M.J.C. No. 21 of 1956 for setting aside the exparte decree, which. -was rejected on 6-8-1956. Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 1956 against order dated 6-8-1956 was allowed on 25-10-1956. The exparte decree was set aside and the suit was remanded to the Munsif, Berhampur, for disposal on evidence. Civil Revision No. 27 of 1956 against the judgment of the Additional District Judge in the miscellaneous appeal was allowed on 29-8-1957 and the Miscellaneous Appeal was remanded for disposal on merits. After remand, the appeal was dismissed on 1-6-5- 958. Civil Revision No. 241 of 1958, against the dismissal order, was dismissed on 2 -1-1960. From the aforesaid facts, it is manifest that the ex-parte decree dated (sic) was alive till 25-10-1956. From 25-10-1956 till 29-8-1957 there was no decree in existence. On 29-8-1957 the decree revived into life. On 23-1-1956 the decree holder started execution in E.P. 50 of 1956. It was dismissed on 19-11-1956. The decree holder filed E.P. 156 of 1960 on 29-8-1960. The Judgment-debtor-respondent took an objection u/s 47, CPC that the execution was barred by limitation. The executing Court rejected this contention, but the learned Additional District Judge on 9-5-1962 held that the execution application was barred by time. Against this appellate order, the present miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 2. Mr. Sen contends that the decree dated 21-12-1955 was revived into life on 29-8-1957, and as the present execution has been filed on 9-8- 960, within three years thereof, the execution is within time. He relies on Articles 182(1) and 181 of the Limitation Act. 3. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to quote Articles 181 and 182(1) and (5) of the Limitation Act, Article 181 - Applications for which no period When the right to of limitation is provided elsewhere apply accrues. He relies on Articles 182(1) and 181 of the Limitation Act. 3. In order to appreciate this contention it is necessary to quote Articles 181 and 182(1) and (5) of the Limitation Act, Article 181 - Applications for which no period When the right to of limitation is provided elsewhere apply accrues. in this schedule or by section 48 Three of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) years Article 182- For the execution of a decree or Three years The date order of any Civil Court not or where a of the decree provided for by article 183 or by certified copy or order Election 48 of the Code of Civil of the decree Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). or order has been registered, six years. (where the application next hereinafter mentioned has been made) the date of (the final order passed on an application made) in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step in aid of execution of the decree or order. Article 181 is a residuary article. It prescribes that application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere should be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues'. The position of law is well settled that this article has no application if any other article under the schedule has application. The approach should, therefore, be to first find out if any other article has application to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Mr. Panda contends that Article 182(5) directly applies. According to him, E.P. 50 of 1956 was dismissed on 19-11-1956, and when the decree was revived into life on 29-8-1957, a fresh execution application could have been filed within three years from either 25-10-1956 or 19-11-1956. In terms, Article 18(5) applies. The date of the final order in the execution case No. 50 of 953 was passed on 19-11-1956. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the execution case could be deemed to have been dismissed on 25-10-1956, when the decree was set aside, the application under Article 182(5) could have been filed within three years from either of these dates, and the period would go right upto 25-10-1959 or 19-11-1959. In either case, the decree-holder had about a period of two years in hand for executing the decree. Mr. In either case, the decree-holder had about a period of two years in hand for executing the decree. Mr. Panda's contention has full force on the plain language of Article 182 (5) and no injustice is done to the decree-holder by such a construction. A hypothetical illustration was canvassed in the course of argument to the effect that if the Civil Revision restoring the decree would have been disposed of beyond three years of 25-10-1956 or 19-11-1956 then which would be the proper article to apply? In such a case, Article 182(5) will have no application, because the decree-holder cannot get the time of three years from the date of the final order passed on the execution application. The residuary article 181 will have application to such a case. This illustration is given to avoid any confusion of thought that in all circumstances Article 182(5) will have application. 4. Mr. Sen relies on Clause (1) of article 182 which prescribes a period of three years from the date of the decree or order. He contends that the date of the decree is 29-8-1957 when the exparte decree was revived in the life in C.R. 274 of 1956. There are some authorities in support of such contention. But the matter seems to be concluded, so far as this Court is concerned, by a Bench decision reported in ILR 1963 Cutt 723. That authority did not deal with a case under Clause (1) of article 182 But the construction given to Clause (2) and (3) in that article would apply with full force to the construction to be given to Clause (1). The three clauses analysed come to this-the date of the decree under Clause (1) is the date passed in the original suit Clause (2) applies to appeals against the very decree and Clause (3) applies to cases of review of judgments. The Bench decision held that the Clauses (2) and (3) do not apply to appeals or review arising out of collateral proceedings and in that particular case the collateral proceeding was one under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure. The identical construction must be given to Clause (1). Mr. Sen's contention cannot, therefore, be accepted. He placed reliance on Ramgulam Singh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and Others, and Chanda Devi Vs. Natthu Singh and Others. The identical construction must be given to Clause (1). Mr. Sen's contention cannot, therefore, be accepted. He placed reliance on Ramgulam Singh and Others Vs. Raj Kumar Rai and Others, and Chanda Devi Vs. Natthu Singh and Others. The facts in those cases would indicate that the period from the date of the extinction of the decree and its revival was more than three years. That would come within the purview of the illustration given above and Article 181 directly applies to such a case. Those cases are also contrary to I.L.R 1963 Cutt 723. I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Sen. 5. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed