JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY. J. — Petitioner is the Decree-holder in Execution Case No. 8 of 1996. The decree was passed in the origi¬nal jurisdiction by the High Court at Calcutta. As per the state¬ment in the execution petition that was a money decree which was passed on 1.2.1984. That decree was transferred to Orissa for execution and registered as Execution Case No. 8 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhadrak. Plaintiff/decree-holder has claimed for realisation of an amount of Rs. 2,59,378.43 paise and in Column 10 of the execution petition, relating to the mode in which assistance of the Court is re¬quired, petitioner has stated that “I pray that the total amount of Rs. 2,59,378.43 paise (together with the interest on the principal sum up to the date of payment) and the cost of taking out this execution be realised by attachment and sale of the immovable property of the defendants 2 and 3 specified at the foot of this application and he paid to me." At the foot of that application he has given particulars of land in six lots totally measuring an area of Ac. 11.43 decimals Petitioner did not furnish the valuation statement nor the Court below pursued that matter. Be that as it may, an application filed by the petitioner to amend the execution petition by amending the schedule of the landed properties, sought to be sold in satisfaction of the decretal dues, was objected to by the J.Drs. on the ground of limtation. On 6.8.1998 learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divi¬sion), Bhadrak passed the impugned order by allowing the prayer of the decree-holder to delete plot Nos. 366 and 367 (lot No. 6) but rejected the prayer to include Plot Nos. 368 and 369 in the schedule of the land proposed to be sold in satisfaction of the decree. 2. Petitioner argued that the ground assigned by the Court below regarding the amendment being bared by law of limited is not correct. On the other hand, opposite party advanced argument supporting the impugned order. 3. In course of hearing of this Civil revision opposite party relied on the case of Tirthananda Jena vs. Bairagi Tripathy and another, 70 (1990) CLT 749. On the other hand, opposite party advanced argument supporting the impugned order. 3. In course of hearing of this Civil revision opposite party relied on the case of Tirthananda Jena vs. Bairagi Tripathy and another, 70 (1990) CLT 749. Learned single Judge of this Court as his Lordship then was) referring to a catena of deci¬sions and the provision in Section 48 of the Code of Civil Proce¬dure (in short ‘the Code’) and provision in Order 21, Rule 17 held that in view of the provision in Section 48 of the Code, the prayer for amendment of mode of assistance by adding other items of property is barred, by limitation. In that context, on a perusal of the Code and Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it appears that the provision in Section 48 of the Code was repealed with effect from 1st July, 1964. Section 48 by the date of repeal was as follows : “48. Execution barred in certain cases. (1) Where an application to execute a decree not being a decree granting an injunction has been made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh appli¬cation presented after the expiration of twelve years from - (a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or (b) where the decree or any subsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the date of the default in making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed - (a) to preclude the Court from ordering the execution of a decree upon an application presented after the expiration of the said term of twelve years, where the judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within twelve years immediately before the date of the application, or (b) to limit or otherwise affect the operation of Article (183 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908).” Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 56 of 1974. Before being repealed that provision was as follows : “28. Amendment of certain Acts. Before being repealed that provision was as follows : “28. Amendment of certain Acts. - In the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), in Sec. 15 for the words “sixty years” the words “thirty years” shall be substituted; and in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Sec. 48 shall be omitted.” It, therefore, appears that the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Tirthananda Jena (supra) was with reference to Section 48 of the Code which was no more in the Statute Book. Under such circumstances, this Bench is of prima facie opinion that the view taken by the Hon’ble Judge in the case of Tirtha¬nanda Jena requires reconsideration with due reference to the both repealed provisions i.e., Section 48 of the Code and Section 28 of the Act. In all fitness, the matter should be examined by a Larger Bench, i.e., a Division Bench. Therefore, the Registry is directed to place the mater before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to consider the matter in a Division Bench on the following terms of reference : (i) In view of repeal of Section 48 of the Code whether the restriction of Limitation imposed therein still holds good so as to effect the application for amendment of Execution Petition by adding or substituting the mode of assistance and the properties for sale in satisfaction of the decree. (ii) In view of the repeal of Section 48 of the Code and Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963, whether the ratio laid down in the case of Tirthananda Jena (supra) still holds the field relat¬ing to limitation. Matter referred.