Maclean, C.J:— This appeal must fail. It is apparent that the execution creditor did nothing after the 29th of May 1893, until he made his present application on the 16th of June 1897. On the 14th of September 1894 he was required by the Court dealing with the execution proceedings to pay certain fees; he did not pay them, and the case was disposed of. He did nothing until the 16th June 1897 and he now asks us to look upon the application of that date as a continuation of the old proceedings. I am unable to take that view; that application was a fresh one, and not a continuation of the old proceedings. The Court below was right in saying that the application was time-barred. The appeal must be dismissed with costs, 3 gold mohurs.
Banerjee, J.:— I am of the same opinion. I only wish to add that if there had not been the orders of the 6th September 1894 and 14th September following, there might have been considerable force in the contention of the learned vakil for the Appellant that the case came within the scope of the ruling in Raghunath Sahay v. Lalji Singh(1). But the ground of that decision was, that the subsequent application should be treated as a continuation of the last preceding application. Here it is impossible to regard the present application as a continuation of the previous application, when there was a clear break in the continuity by the reason of the decree-holder's omission, though called upon by the Court to do so, to deposit the costs for service of a fresh sale proclamation and when by reason of that omission the previous proceeding came to an end.
S.C.P
Appeal dismissed.