ORDER Sivasubramaniam, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.P. No. 110 of 1983 in O.S. No. 145 of 1963 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore. 2. The respondents herein filed E.P. No. 110 of 1983 to execute the decree against the petitioners herein and some others, who were the judgment-debtors. During the pendency of the execution petition, the 3rd defendant Jeevarathana Mudaliar died, and thereafter, the present petitioners were impleaded as his legal representatives. They were added as respondents 7 and 8 in the execution petition. They resisted the execution petition on the ground that neither the 3rd defendant nor his legal representatives are 'debtors' under the various Debt Laws, viz., Act 15 of 1976 and 16 of 1976, and therefore the said Acts will not apply to the present case. It was, therefore, contended that the execution petition filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law is clearly barred by time. The said objection was summarily overruled by the lower Court on the ground that the petitioners herein have not established how they are not 'debtors' under Acts 15 and 16 of 1976. 3. On the facts of if, the said order is unsustainable. It is seen that when the execution petition was filed, the Office returned the same on the ground that the petition was barred by time. It was endorsed on behalf of the decree-holders that in view of the Acts 15 and 16 of 1976, the period of limitation is saved. Therefore, it is a case where decree-holders want to take advantage of the exclusion of time provided under the said Acts, and in such circumstances, the burden is on the decree-holders to show that the judgment-debtors will come under the definition of 'debtor' under the said Acts. In this case, such a burden is wrongly placed on the petitioners herein Therefore, the order passed by the lower Court has to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court. The lower Court is directed to consider the matter afresh on merits and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made above. 4. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court. The lower Court is directed to consider the matter afresh on merits and dispose of the same in the light of the observations made above. Since the matter is pending for a long time, the lower Court is directed to dispose of this within two months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs.