Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioner is the defendant against whom respondent-plaintiff obtained decree in O. S.134 of 1951 of the Sub Court, Trivandrum. Plea of limitation raised by the defendant was rejected by the executing court. 2. Admitted facts would show that the decree was passed on 28-11-1951. Plaintiff filed E.P. 336 of 1961 and it was dismissed on 1-2-1963. While the E. P. was pending, Wakf Board filed claim petition. That was dismissed on 20-11-1962. Wakf Board filed A. S.67 of 1963 against the dismissal order. While A. S.67 of 1963 was pending there was stay of execution proceedings. From 15-7-64 onwards, on which date appeal was dismissed, there was no stay. The present E.P. was filed on 28-10-79. Contention of the defendant is that the E. P. is hopelessly time barred. 3. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the order dismissing the previous execution petition was not a judicial order but only an administrative one, that the previous execution petition has to be deemed to be pending and hence the present execution petition can be continued by reviving it and therefore, the present execution petition is not barred by limitation. That is precisely the question to be decided in this revision petition. 4. The earlier E. P. was dismissed in view of the stay order in A. S.67 of 1963 of the District Court, Trivandrum. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the order cannot be construed as a judicial one and the previous petition has to be deemed to be pending in spite of its dismissal which was only for statistical purpose. It has to be noted that on the passing of the stay order by the District Court, Trivandrum, in A. S.67 of 1963 the previous execution petition was dismissed. The previous E. P. was dismissed in view of the fact that the sale was stopped as per the stay order in A. S.67 of 1963. In view of the above position it is difficult to hold that the present E. P. is barred by limitation. The previous E. P. was dismissed in view of the fact that the sale was stopped as per the stay order in A. S.67 of 1963. In view of the above position it is difficult to hold that the present E. P. is barred by limitation. The above position is fortified by the decision in AIR 1964 S.C.1454 (Venkanna v. Bangaru Raju) wherein it has been held as follows: "Whereas the previous execution petition is closed for statistical purposes because the High Court stayed the execution pending the appeal filed by the judgment debtors, and the decree holders were not in a position to proceed with the execution petition, the execution petition must be held to be pending on the file of the executing court and the subsequent application is only an application to continue the previous application and not a fresh one." It is also useful to refer to 1964-1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 115 (Venkatachalamayya v. Venkata Narasimha Rao) wherein held as follows: "Execution petition 'dismissed as stayed' is of the same category as'dismissal for default' or 'dismissal for statistical purpose' and is not a final dismissal. Consequently any further execution petition would be deemed to be a continuation of that." Where fresh execution petition is filed for a relief against the parties or properties different from the previous E. P. dismissed by a non judicial order or asked for relief substantially different from the earlier E, P. it will have to be construed as a fresh application and not an application in continuation of the previous one. In such a case plea of limitation can be successfully raised. As the previous execution petition is deemed to be pending, though it was disposed of not by a judicial order, it cannot be said that the present E. P. is barred by limitation. The prayer in the present E. P. is also for the continuation of the proceedings in furtherance of the earlier petition. As the present execution petition is one to revive previous execution petition it is not possible to hold that it is barred by limitation. The execution court has rightly held that the execution petition is not barred by limitation. I find no reasons to interfere. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Dismissed.