JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee in the post of salesman under Contai Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited. On account of alleged misconduct he was suspended from service and a dispute proceeding was initiated under Dispute Case No. 15 of 1985-86 under Section 86 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. The dispute case was heard by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Midnapore-III, Contai and by order dated 27th March, 1987, an award/decree was passed in the following term:- "That the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff society the sum of Rs. 64,044.24 on account of principal and interest thereon calculated upto 31.3.1987 and costs amounting to Rs. 1,000/- and that the principal amount of Rs. 40,044.24 shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 1.4.1987 till the date of realisation. "Meanwhile, alleging that subsisting allowance was not paid to the petitioner, a writ petition was filed under W.P. No. 14718(W) of 2005 against the opposite party, namely, Contai Thana Co-operative Agricultural Marketing Society Limited and His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta by order dated 23.9.2005 directed the opposite party herein to pay the arrears of all subsistence allowance. Direction was also given for completion of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has a grievance that the arrears of subsistence allowance was not paid but that is not the subject matter of this case; and I am told that a contempt application has been filed by the petitioner for violation of Court's order. That the departmental proceeding has been concluded with the order as aforesaid is not in dispute in this application. I am told further by learned Advocate for the opposite party that the order of the disciplinary authority was challenged in Tribunal and the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 25.01.1988. The order of the Tribunal was further assailed before the writ jurisdiction of this Court and His Lordship Hon'ble Justice Basudev Panigrahi (as His Lordship then was) was pleased to dismiss the writ application for default as none appeared for the petitioner. Then the decree was put into execution in Mortgage Execution Case No. 13/2000 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai for realisation of the following amount:- Principal: Rs. 40,044.24 Interest upto Date 31.3.87. Rs. 24,000.00 @ Rs. 15% interest from date 1.4.87 to till the disposal of the execution case and also costs of present execution case. 2. Then the decree was put into execution in Mortgage Execution Case No. 13/2000 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Contai for realisation of the following amount:- Principal: Rs. 40,044.24 Interest upto Date 31.3.87. Rs. 24,000.00 @ Rs. 15% interest from date 1.4.87 to till the disposal of the execution case and also costs of present execution case. 2. The execution case has been resisted in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on three grounds, namely, (1) the execution case is barred by limitation, (2) That the amount claimed in the execution application is not the amount awarded in the dispute case and (3) the schedule of the property which is proposed to be put in auction sale is vague. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the opposite party. With respect to the ground of limitation, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the award was passed on 27.03.1987, while the execution application was filed on 24.05.2000 which is beyond time because under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation for realisation of the decretal amount is 12 years. I failed to find any point of dispute here. The award was passed on 27.03.1987 and immediately thereafter the award was challenged in Tribunal which affirmed the award and dismissed the appeal on 25.01.1988. Again the petitioner challenged Tribunal's order before the High Court which dismissed the writ application on 16.01.1999. The trial Court's decree merged in the appeal Court's order but the decree could not be put into execution because of the writ application challenging the appeal was filed. It is the settled law that the decree of the trial Court merged with the decree of the appeal Court and the latter supersedes decree of the trial Court. In Shyamaprasad Chowdhury v. Saha Chowdhury and Co. & Ors., AIR 1976 Cal. 122 it has been held that limitation starts from the decree of the appeal Court and the trial Court's judgment got finality in the dismissal of the application filed before the High Court against the appellate order. Therefore, the period of limitation starts from the date immediately after the date of disposal of the application filed before the High Court by the petitioner herein against the appellate order. 4. Therefore, the period of limitation starts from the date immediately after the date of disposal of the application filed before the High Court by the petitioner herein against the appellate order. 4. The second point that the amount claimed in the execution application is not the amount awarded cannot be sustained because it was ordered in the decree that the petitioner will pay to the society a sum of Rs. 64,044.24 on account of the principal and interest thereon calculated upto 31.03.1987 and costs of Rs. 1,000/- and that the principal amount of Rs. 40,044.24 shall carry interest at rate of 15 per cent per annum from 01.04.1987 till the date of realisation. It has been submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for the opposite party that the amount claimed in the decree is in accordance with the decree and the petitioner has not challenged that the amount calculated was wrong. I do not think that in the execution application decree was sought for realisation of an amount which was not in the decree. 5. The third point is that the property proposed to be sold in auction as has been described in the schedule to the application could not be identified because description is vague. It is further submitted that the schedule given in the application for execution is not the schedule which is appearing in the public auction notice. I have carefully perused the schedule of the property as given in the execution application and the auction notice and I find there is no vagueness. I find no merit in the application and accordingly it is dismissed but without costs.