JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, M. - This is a second appeal against the order dated February 23, 1968 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in appeal against the order dated November 26, 1965 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Sadar Gorakhpur in a case of execution of decrees. 2. Ram Singar Singh filed suit under sections 229-B, 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Ramanand and other defendants. The suit was decreed on December 6, 1963 and Rama Nand was ordered to be ejected from plot No. 1074/0-42 and to pay costs of the suit. The plaintiff-decree holder applied for correction of decree which was corrected of decree which was corrected on June 18, 1964. Thereafter he (Ram Singar Singh plaintiff) applied on January 2, 1965 for the execution of decree and prayed that Rama Nand be ejected from the disputed plot. The decree was executed and possession was delivered to Ram Singar Singh plaintiff. Rama Nana defendant filed objection against the execution of decree on March 22, 1965 on various grounds. 3. On November 26, 1965, the trial court rejected the objection of Rama nand. Ramanand filed appeal in the court of Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur. 4. On February 23, 1968, the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the execution application holding it to be time-barred. It further held that the period of limitation will be counter from the date of the original decree dated December 6, 1963 and not from the date of the amend decree dated June 18, 1964. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the period of limitation will be counter from June 18, 1964 when the decree was amended and not from December 6, 1963 when the decree was originally prepared. He contended that the Additional Commissioner erred in holding that the period of limitation will be counter from December 6, 1963 when the original decree was prepared. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that order XX Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code provides that the decree shall bear dated the day on which judgment was pronounced. He further argued that the judgment was pronounced on December 6, 1963 and, therefore, the date of decree was also December 6, 1963. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that order XX Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code provides that the decree shall bear dated the day on which judgment was pronounced. He further argued that the judgment was pronounced on December 6, 1963 and, therefore, the date of decree was also December 6, 1963. He further argued that limitation will be counter from the date of the original decree when the judgment was pronounced and not from the date when the decree was subsequently amended. He placed reliance on the case Hira Lal and others v. Jamuna Prasad Singh and others A.I.R. 1920 Pat. 111 in which it was held that:- "Limitation for execution for a decree begins to run from the date of the decree and that date is under 0.20, Rule, the date on which Judgment was pronounced." He also placed reliance on the case Harbans Singh v. Ram Chandra and others A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 139 in which it was held that:- "The provision of law laid down in 0.20. Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code, that the decree shall bear date the day on which the judgment was pronounced is mandatory and therefore the date of the decree must correspond with the date of the judgment, irrespective of the fact that the decree is drawn up some time later after the judgment is given, the decree must be taken to operate from the date of the judgment, although it may have actually been prepared subsequent to the date of the Judgment and therefore limitation in such a case under Article 182 or even Article 181 runs from the date of the judgment." He also placed reliance on the case Gajadhar Singh v. Basant Lal and others A.I.R. 1921 Alld. 60 in which it was held that:- "Every amendment made in a decree does not necessarily entitled a party entitle a party who prefers an appeal against the decree to claim and extension of time under the second paragraph of Section 5. 60 in which it was held that:- "Every amendment made in a decree does not necessarily entitled a party entitle a party who prefers an appeal against the decree to claim and extension of time under the second paragraph of Section 5. If the amendment has no relation to the grounds upon which the validity of the decree is sought to be challenged in appeal, an admission of the appeal out of time cannot be claimed merely on the ground that an amendment has been made in the decree." He also placed reliance on the case Bai Vasanti Wd/o Patel Ishwarlal Chiman lal v. Suryaprasad Ishvarlal Patel A.I.R. 1969 (Guj.) 152 in which his Lordships observed:- "By an order of Court decree prepared and signed on April 26, 1961 bearing date March 28, 1958- "Execution application filed on September 26, 1951 held barred by time-Decree came into Existence on March 28, 1958 as it was the date on which judgment was pronounced and the date March 20, 1958 on decree was the correct date." 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Order 20 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code provides that:- "The decree shall date the day on which the judgment was pronounced, and, when the judge has been drawn up in accordance with the judgment, he shall sign the decree." 8. The provision of law laid down under Order XX, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, that the decree shall bear date the day on which the judgment was pronounced is mandatory and, therefore, the date of the decree must correspond with the date of the judgment. That being so, the decree will be deemed to be operative from the date of judgment. It, therefore, follows that limitation for execution of decree will start running from the date of the decree and that date is under Order XX, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, the date on which judgment was pronounced. The fact that the decree was subsequently will not make any difference. An amendment made in the decree does not entitle a party to claim an extension of time. In the present case the judgment was pronounced on December 6, 1963 and the decree was prepared on the same date. Thus limitation started running from December 6, 1963 did not make any difference. An amendment made in the decree does not entitle a party to claim an extension of time. In the present case the judgment was pronounced on December 6, 1963 and the decree was prepared on the same date. Thus limitation started running from December 6, 1963 did not make any difference. The execution application dated January 2, 1965 was time-barred. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the respondent apply in all fours to the present case. The order passed by the Addl. Commissioner is correct and it does not suffer from any illegalty. Appeal has no force. It is accordingly, dismissed with costs.