D. K. Mahajan ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the decision of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, affirming on appeal the decision of the Executing Court holding that the last instalment of Rs. 1159. 00 was still payable by the judgment-debtor. It was within time and had not been discharged decree for Rs. 2250. 00 costs (amounting to Rs. 534. 75 np) was passed against the judgment-debtor on the 5th of October, 1956. The amount decreed was in lieu of arrears of rent of a house of which the judgment-debtor was a tenant. A sum of Rs. 500. 00 was paid in April, 1957, towards this decree, and thereafter on the 10th of May, 1957, the judgment-debtor moved the Debt Conciliation Board under section 9 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. It is not necessary to recapitulate what Transpired before the Board. Suffice it to say that a settlement was arrived at between the parties on the 15th of September, 1958, wherein it was agreed that the judgment-debtor would pay the decretal amount as also the rent that had accrued after the filing of the suit. All the amount was to be paid in six-monthly instalments of Rs. 1500. 00 each. The first instalment was to be paid on the 1st of January, 1959, the second instalment was to be paid on the 1st of June, 1959, and so on. According to section 17 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, the civil Court s decree merged in the settlement arrived at before the Debt Concilatio Board. On the 22nd of February, 1960, the decree-holder applied for execution and in the execution application he gave a detailed statement of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. It was also mentioned that a sum of Rs. 1000. 00 had been paid by the judgment-debtor after the settlement and a breach had taken place of the other terms of the settlement. Therefore, execution for the balance of the amount was sought. The proceedings kept on pending, and during the course of these proceedings some payments were made by the judgment-debtor. On the 22nd of August,-1960, a note was made by the Executing Court that the decreeholder admitted that his claim was confined to Rs. 1284. 75 np. and, accordingly, the judgment-debtor s objections were filed. The proceedings kept on pending, and during the course of these proceedings some payments were made by the judgment-debtor. On the 22nd of August,-1960, a note was made by the Executing Court that the decreeholder admitted that his claim was confined to Rs. 1284. 75 np. and, accordingly, the judgment-debtor s objections were filed. It appears that the claim before the Executing Court regarding which a note was made on the 22nd of August, 1960, was a claim with regard to the original decree and it is common ground that the original decree had been fully satisfied. ( 2 ) THE present dispute relates to the execution of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. According to that settlement a sum of Rs. 4659. 75 np. was due, out of which Rs. 2300. 00 had been paid by the judgment-debtor, and the decree-holder, therefore, sought execution of the balanae of Rs. 2350. 75 np. This application was opposed by the judgment-debtor and the following issues were framed : - "1. Is the agreement recorded before the Debt Conciliation Board, as such, executable ? 2. Is the execution application barred by time ?"the trial Court found the first issue against the judgment-debtor and on the second issue held that only the third instalment of Rs. 1159. 00 was within limitation, as it was payable on the 1st of January, 1960-the application for execution having been made on the 29th of December, 1962. The only other question that was debated before the trial Court was whether the payments made by the judgment-debtor, after the settlement, before the Debt Conciliation Board could be appropriated against the previous two instalments, which had become barred by time ? The Executing Court came to the conclusion that this could be done in view of the provisions of sections 59 to 61 of the Indian Contract Act, and, therefore, held that execution can be taken out to recover the amount of Rs. 1159. 00 only. Against this decision an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, Delhi, which cams up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. So far as the first issue is concerned, the decision thereon was not challenged by the appellant before the appellate Court. The only argument raised was with regard to the question of limitation. 1159. 00 only. Against this decision an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, Delhi, which cams up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. So far as the first issue is concerned, the decision thereon was not challenged by the appellant before the appellate Court. The only argument raised was with regard to the question of limitation. The decision on the question of limitation was, how ever, upheld by the lower appellate Court. It is in this situation that the present second appeal has been preferred in this Court. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the judgment-debtor in the first instance contended that it appears from the record that two executions were going on one after the other-one of the original decree and the second of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. This may appear to be so on paper, but in substance execution was only going on after the settlement which had been arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. Even in the execution application dated the 22nd of February. 1960, the settlement before the Debt Conciliation Board is specifically mentioned. Therefore, the Executing Court was well aware of the true legal position, and it hardly matters whether it erroneously continued proceedings for execution of the first decree and not of the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board, in which the first decree had merged. The fact still remains that the amount settled by the Debt Conciliation Board has not been fully discharged. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor. Therefore, it is of no practical importance that the Executing Court kept alive the proceedings under the first decree after its merger with the settlement arrived at before the Debt Conciliation Board. As such, the first contention of the learned counsel has not merit and must be repelled. ( 4 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel is that payments that were specified by the judgment-debtor towards certain instalments, could not be appropriated towards time barred instalments. This contention is not borne out on the record. It is, no doubt, true that amounts were paid in Court, but there is nothing on the record to indicate that those amounts were paid towards instalments which had not become time barred. This contention is not borne out on the record. It is, no doubt, true that amounts were paid in Court, but there is nothing on the record to indicate that those amounts were paid towards instalments which had not become time barred. All that was done was to pay the amounts in Court without specifying towards which instalment they were being paid. In this situation the Courts below were right in applying the provisions of sections 59 to61of the Indian Contract Act. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this appeal. The same fails and is dismissed. But as there is no representation for the respondent, there will be no order as to costs.