1. We agree with the District Judge in thinking that if an application made under O. 21, R. 100 of the CPC, is dismissed without investigation, the person dispossessed is not bound to bring a suit to establish his right to possession within one year under Article 11-A, Limitation Aat.
2. The decisions in Narasimha Chetty v. Vijiapala Nainar(1) and Ponnusami Pillai v. Samu Ammal(2) related to orders made upon claims under O. 21, R. 63. There is no such change of language in the rules that relate to claims made after sales in execution as there is in those portions of the Code which relate to claims against attachment.
3. Under these circumstances the decisions under the old Code upon this point apply, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs. The District Court should have given a refund of the value of the stamp on the appeal memo, to the appellant instead of including it among the costs to be paid by respondent in the decree.
S.N/R.K
4. Appeal dismissed.