Judgment :- 1. The decree holder in E.P. 223(a)/81 in O.S.2/66 of the Munsiff Court, Changanassery is the revision petitioner. The E.P. was dismissed by the executing court on the ground of limitation. 2. The decree was dated 5-2-66. E.P. 310/67 was filed on 17-6-67. That E.P. was dismissed on 17-1-68. The present E.P. has been filed 12 years after the dismissal of the previous E.P. 3. Contention of the decree holder is that as the previous E.P. was dismissed on 17-1-68 for administrative purpose the present E.P. which is only to revive the earlier E.P. is not barred by limitation. Another contention is that on account of the intervention of the Debt Relief Act and Ordinances the period of limitation is saved. 4. Judgment debtor filed objections and the E.P. 310/67 was posted for enquiry. As the decree holder's counsel was absent the E.P. was dismissed on 17-1-68. The question that has to be considered is as to whether the later E.P. is barred by limitation. In A.I.R. 1973 Gujarat 264 (Ashabhai v. Ishwarbhai) it has been held that in the absence of the decree holder the executing court can dismiss an execution application for default and such an order will be a valid one. It cannot be said that the dismissal was on account of administrative reasons. In a case where the execution petition was dismissed purely for administrative purpose or in view of the stay granted by the appellate court subsequent E.P. filed to revive the earlier one cannot be held to be barred by limitation. But, in a case where the judgment debtor filed objections to the execution petition and it was posted for enquiry and when the decree holder did not show readiness to prosecute the matter and as a result of it the E.P. was dismissed, the dismissal can only be construed as a judicial order and not as an order for administrative purpose. When there is a judicial order of dismissal of the execution petition any attempt to file fresh E.P. will have to be presented within the statutory period. 5. This is a case where the execution petition was posted (or enquiry after judgment debtor filed his counter statement. Decree holder's E.P. happened to be dismissed. When there is a judicial order of dismissal of the execution petition any attempt to file fresh E.P. will have to be presented within the statutory period. 5. This is a case where the execution petition was posted (or enquiry after judgment debtor filed his counter statement. Decree holder's E.P. happened to be dismissed. In a case where the E.P. has been dismissed for statutory purpose or consequent to the stay by the appellate court the position is that the dismissal was on account of no fault of the decree holder. The same is not the position in a case where the E.P. happened to be dismissed when it is posted for enquiry. In the former case, decree holder cannot at all be blamed as E.P. happened to be dismissed due to reasons beyond his control. In such a case decree holder will have to file E.P. within the period of limitation. As the E.P. is filed beyond time it is barred by limitation. 6. Another contention of the revision petitioner is that due to the intervention of the Debt Relief Act and Ordinances, the period of limitation could be got over. But, it has to be noted that the amount claimed by the plaintiff represents the price of goods sold for the business of the judgment debtor. It is a debt which is excluded from the purview of Act 30 of 1975 and Ordinance 1 of 1977. From the address of the defendant it is seen that he is described as a business man. His profession is shown as business. Ia the E.P., it is not stated that the defendant is an agriculturist having any interest in the agricultural operations. Therefore, it cannot be said that the limitation is saved by Act 30 of 1975 and other Debt Relief Acts. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs. \