Short Note : The appellant decree-holder had obtained a decree against Kachrulal on 24-12-1952. The execution was pending One Mannalal brother of Kachrulal had filed objection to the attachment under Order 21, rule 28 CPC which was dismissed. Thereafter a Civil suit under Order 21, rule 63 CPC was filed by Mannalal on 17-6-1954. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant decree-holder made an application on 22-2-55 in which he stated that he was not inclined to take further steps for the time being and prayed that the execution be consigned to the record room. On that application, the executing Court passed an order on 23-2-55 to the effect that as the decree-holder did not desire to take further steps in the case, the execution be consigned to the record room as prayed After the dismissal of the suit filed by Mannalal, an application was made by the decree-holder on 23-6-59 to revive the execution proceedings. An objection was raised by the judgment-debtor that the execution was disposed finally on 23-2-55 and it became time-barred by time it was revived on 23-6-59. The execution Court rejected this objection, but the first appellate Court upheld it and held the execution as barred by limitation. The decree-holder went in second appeal. Held; The question for consideration is whether the order of the Execution Court dated 23-2-55 on the application of the decree-holder dated 22-2-55 is a final order whereby the execution case can be said to have been dismissed or whether it was an order directing the execution proceedings to be adjourned sine die. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the institution of the proceedings under Order 21, rule 63 CPC, the appellant could not have proceeded with the execution. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the institution of the proceedings under Order 21, rule 63 CPC, the appellant could not have proceeded with the execution. In support of this contention reliance was placed on certain decisions in which it was held that in a case where during the pendency of the execution proceedings third party claimant puts in claims petition on the ground that the properties attached by the decree-holder did not belong to the judgment-debtor, the decree could not be executed and the pendency of the claim petition operates as stay of the execution of the decree in order to attract the provisions of section 15 (1) of the Limitation Act Those decisions would not help the appellant in this case because at the time when he had filed the application for consigning the execution case to the Record Room, the objection of Mannalal under Order 21, rule 58 CPC was already dismissed and he had filed the suit under Order 21, rule 63 CPC in which no order was passed to stay the execution of the decree. Therefore, there was no legal bar for the appellant to proceed further in the execution case. However in Madholal Damlal v. Gajrabai, AIR 1951 Nagpur 194, it was held that a suit under O.21, rule 63 is not in essence an original suit but merely a continuation of the proceedings in a claim petition and hence all alienations during the continuance of the proceedings originated by claim petition till disposal of suit under Order 21, rule 63 are affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. It is thus quite probable that the appellant decree-holder did not think it advisable to proceed further in the execution case and get the property sold in an auction sale during the pendency of the suit under Order 21, rule 63 CPC so as to create further complications. The decree-holder at the same time did not want that his execution should be dismissed for want of prosecution. He, therefore, made an application that for the time being the execution be consigned to the Record Room. The Executing Court accepted that prayer and directed that the execution case be consigned to the Record Room. The decree-holder at the same time did not want that his execution should be dismissed for want of prosecution. He, therefore, made an application that for the time being the execution be consigned to the Record Room. The Executing Court accepted that prayer and directed that the execution case be consigned to the Record Room. It is pertinent to note that after the execution was consigned to the Record Room the attachment was allowed to continue and that is why the objector Mannalal contested his claim under Order 21, rule 63 till it was finally -disposed of by the Court. In Vijendra Nath Vs. Jagdish Rai Agarwal, AIR 1967 SC 600 , an execution application was consigned to the Record Room during the pendency of the appeal which was filed by a tenant against the order dismissing his objections to the execution application. When that appeal was dismissed another application for execution of the decree was filed and it was held by the Supreme Court that the object of the second application was to revive the substantive application for execution which was filed earlier and that the subsequent application must be regarded as continuation of the execution proceedings which were originally commenced. Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the Delhi High Court in Gopichand v. Smt. Brahmo Devi, AIR 1968 Delhi 101, has held that an order consigning execution application to Record Room does not amount to disposal of the application and it has the affect of adjourning the proceedings sine die. Balwantrao Vs. Dhondha Dashrath, AIR 1953 Nag. 200, relied on. The learned counsel for the respondent laid great stress on the application dated 26-02-55 which was made by the decree-holder appellant in the Executing Court for the return of the decree and it was urged that the said conduct of the appellant would show that he did not want to proceed further in the execution and hence the order dated 23-2-55 should be construed as a final order of disposal of the execution case. To my mind this contention has got no force. In the application dated 26-2-55 as well the appellant had stated that the execution was consigned to the Record Room and that the copy of the decree may be returned to him for further action. To my mind this contention has got no force. In the application dated 26-2-55 as well the appellant had stated that the execution was consigned to the Record Room and that the copy of the decree may be returned to him for further action. There was no bar for getting the copy of the decree back during the time when the execution was adjourned sine die. In law a decree-holder can file simultaneous executions. The decree-holder, therefore, during the pendency of the execution matter could have filed another application to recover the decreetal amount from any other property of the judgment-debtor. When the appellant decree-holder knew that the Executing Court had accepted his prayer in consigning the execution to the Record Room the mere withdrawal of the copy of the decree would not change the nature of the order of the Court which was already passed on 23-2-55. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the order of the Executing Court da ted 23-2-55 was not a final order disposing of the execution, but it was an order adjourning the executing case sine die. Therefore. the application dated 23-6-59 W.lS not a fresh execution application but it was an application in conlinultion of the execution which was already pending whereby a prayer was made for further proceedings in the execution case. Appeal allowed, order of the executing Court restored.