George Knox, J.
1. The applicant before me is one Bhondo, a decree-holder, who, on the 15th of December, 1893, obtained a decree against one Musammat Pana,. From time to time, he tried to execute this decree and eventually, on the 18th of September, 1909, he applied for execution by bringing to sale certain property which had been hypothecated to him and which is represented as being the property of Musammat Pana. While this application was pending, one Salig Ram intervened with a petition, dated the 8th of February, 1910, stating that he had purchased the property from Musammat Pana, that the decree against Musammat Pana was time-barred before he effected his purchase, and that the property in dispute was no longer the property of Musammat Pana but his (Salig Ram's) property. As a result of his intervention, the application for execution was dismissed on the 7th of March, 1910. No appeal was presented from this order of dismissal, but on the 27th of May, 1910, when an appeal could no longer be filed, the decree-holder applied for a review of the order of the dismissal. The Munsif entertained the application, and on the 9th of August 1910, allowed the application. He was of opinion that sufficient reason had been shown to admit the application even after the expiry of the period of limitation. This question arose because the name of Salig Ram, who had intervened, did not appear as a party on the copy of the judgment. A second reason given for allowing the application for review was that the ruling of this Court in Kounsilla v. Ishri Singh 7 A.L.J. 420 : 6 Ind. Cas. 188 : 32 A 499 took a different view of the law from that which the learned Munsif had done. Salig Ram then appealed to District Judge. The District Judge brushed aside the view of the Munsif on both points and rejected the application for review. The result is that the present application for revision is made to this Court. It is urged that the application for review was fully warranted by law and the Court of first instance was justified in granting it. On the other hand, it is contended that no ground has been shown which would bring this case within Section 115 of Act V of 1908. I do not go into the question whether the case is one which strictly falls within the provisions of Section 115 of the Code. It appears to me that the safer rule to apply in this case is the principle laid down in Abdul Sadiq v. Abdul Aziz A.W.N. (1899) 1 : 21 A. 152. We have the case of decree-holder, who has been trying to execute his decree and who has been prevented from reaping the fruits of the decree he has obtained. If I interfere with the order of the Munsif, I shall be assisting in this. I think that this is a case in which the discretion of the Munsif was rightly applied and I set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs.