1. This Rule is directed against an order by which the Court of Small Causes of Dacca has refused the application for execution of a certain decree on the ground that the decree is time barred. The decree is dated 9th May 1913. The decree-holder, who is the petitioner before us, alleges that the judgment-debtor made a payment to him of Rs. 25 on 10th June 1914, and a further payment of Rs. 50 on 20th November 1914. He also alleges two earlier payments which for the purposes of this Rule we may disregard.
2. On 6th June 1917 he made an application to the Court for certifying the above payments. On 9th June 1917 he next applied for execution of his decree. Without taking evidence in the matter the learned Subordinate Judge held that the payments of 10th June 1914 and 20th November 1914, to which we have referred, taken with the decree-holder's application of 6th June 1917, were not sufficient to save limitation. We are unable to hold that on the facts before him he has come to a proper decision in this matter. We need only refer him to the cases reported as Chhoto Bakhal Das Majumdar v. Jagendra Narain Majumdar (1), Lakhi Narain Ganguli v. Felamani Dasi (2) and Eusuffseman Sarkar v. Sanohia Lal Nahata (3). Prom these cases it will appear that the payments of June and November 1914 being within three years from the date of the decree, and the application of 6th June 1917 being again within three years from the date of those payments, it follows that if those payments were in fact made the decree-holder will have a fresh starting point for limitation within the meaning of Article 182 (5), Sch. 1, Lim. Act.
3. Under these circumstances we set aside the order made by the Court of Small Causes and return the record to him, in order that after the taking of evidence he may proceed to dispose of the application before him in accordance with law.
V.B/R.K
4. Record returned.