Judgment :- 1. This second appeal by the judgment-debtor is against an order finding the execution petition filed on January 6, 1961, to be not barred by limitation. The decree is dated October 5,1948, and 12 years thereafter expired by October 5,1960. The Munsiff held the E. P. barred; but the District Judge, on appeal, reversed him, holding that S.6 (2) of Act XXXI of 1958 as it stood before amendment in 1961 vested a right in the decree holder to reckon S.4 of the Act as a subsequent order in the case within the meaning of S.48 (2) C. P. C. and therefore as a fresh starting point for limitation for execution, which vested right could not be affected by the subsequent enactment of the amending Act II of 1961. Hence this second appeal. 2. The amending Act II of 1961 by mandate of the legislature has to be "deemed to have come into force on the 14th day of July 1958", which was the very date when the Act XXXI of 1958 came into force. It has therefore to be taken that the.original provision in S.6 (2) of the Act XXXI of 1958 was amended the very moment it came into force and there was no interval during which the unamended provision can be said to have been in operation. No vested right can therefore accrue to any citizen under the original (unamended) provision which was never in operation. If the amending Act is valid nobody so far said it is not the District Judge went wrong in holding that it did not take away a right vested in the decree holder by the unamended Act; and that being the only reason for his reversal of the Munsiff the judgment under appeal herein has to be and is discharged. 3. Mr. P. R. Nambiar, counsel for the decree holder-respondent, contends that, without the aid of S.6 (2) of Act XXXI of 1958, the E. P. can be accepted to be within time and relied on Velayudhan v. Gokulam (1964 K. L. T. 600) in support. That is a point not taken in either of the Courts below and as such I do not propose to entertain here. The decree holder may, if so advised, urge it before the Court below. That is a point not taken in either of the Courts below and as such I do not propose to entertain here. The decree holder may, if so advised, urge it before the Court below. In the circumstances this second appeal is allowed and the decree of the Court below is discharged and the matter remitted to the District Court for disposal de novo. There will be no order as to costs here. Allowed.