Short Note : 1. The short point involved in the revision related to the question about the commencement of limitation for an app1ication for execution in a case where the decree directing delivery of possession to one party was conditional on payment of certain amount by the part) seeking possession to the other side, who was already in possession and when the decree did not fix any time limit for making the payment. It was not disputed that the decree sought to be executed by the applicants was on the following terms:- (1) That on payment of a sum of Rs. 2,000 by the applicants to the non-applicants, the applicants will be entitled to get back possession of the suit land from the non-applicants by executing the decree. (2) No time limit was fixed for making such payment. 2. More than 12 years after the date of the decree, the applicants tendered and deposited the re4uired sum of Rs 2,000 for payment to the non-applicants and applied for being placed in possession in execution of the said decree. The executing Court earlier directed issue of warrant of possession, but later on revoked its own order by holding that since the application for execution was moved beyond the period of 12 years, it was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the same. The lower appellate Court upheld the order of the executing Court. Held : The main contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that since no time-limit was prescribed by the decree in question, the applicants were free to make payment at any time. The argument was that the right to execute the decree accrued only when the payment required by the terms of the compromise decree was made. According to the applicants, the decree for obtaining possession did not become enforceable unless and until the amount required to be paid to the non-applicants was tendered and deposited. It was, therefore, contended that the limitation started from the date of the deposit and as such the application for execution was within time. Now it has to be seen whether the decree involved in the present case was capable of being enforced from the date it was made or it became enforceable only when the payment was made by the applicants who claim possession of the suit land in execution of the said decree. Now it has to be seen whether the decree involved in the present case was capable of being enforced from the date it was made or it became enforceable only when the payment was made by the applicants who claim possession of the suit land in execution of the said decree. It will not be correct to say that the decree became capable of being enforced only when the applicants made the deposit, because it cannot be said that immediately after the passing of the decree, there was any obstruction in the way of the applicants to enforce the decree for execution by making the required payment. If they wanted to enforce the decree and obtain possession in execution of the same, they should have applied for execution within the prescribed period of limitation after making the necessary deposit. The consequence of the fact that no date was fixed for payment was that the applicants had the advantage of being able to execute the decree after paying the said amount at any time, but necessarily during the period of limitation for filing an application for execution. Had a date been fixed the payment had to be made by the said date. This much is the difference and concession in a case where no date is fixed for payment. But such a concession cannot be construed to mean that payment could be made at any time at the will of the decree-holder or his successors even after the period of limitation. Baluram v. Madnabai, 1971 JLJ SN 143 relied on. Lalji v. Gajadhar, AIR 1962 Allahabad 431. Rameshwar Singh v. Homeshwar, AIR 1921 PC 31 , distinguished. Revision dismissed.