1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are shortly as follows. A joint-decree was made against seven persons including Bindeshri Prasad, the husband of the appellant. An application was made for execution of this decree on the 11th of October 1901. A second application was made on the 21st of January 1903. Both of these applications must be taken to have been made against the judgment-debtors other than Bindeshri Prasad or his representative, the appellant. On the 30th of May 1903, an agreement was entered into between the six judgment-debtors and the decree-holders providing for payment of the decree and interest by instalments and providing also that in default of payment of an instalment the money could be realised under the decree. Neither Bindeshri Prasad nor his widow were party to this agreement. On the 14th of July 1905, a third application was made for execution against the judgment-debtors other than the appellant. On the 11th of March 1908, the present application was made against the appellant as the representative of Bindeshri Prasad. The Court below has allowed execution to go. It is contended in appeal that the effect of the agreement of 30th May 1903 was to release the estate of Bindeshri Prasad. Limitation is also pleaded. In our judgment the agreement cannot have the effect contended for. The present application is not an application for the execution of an amended or altered decree. It is an application for execution of the original decree on foot of which Bindeshri Prasad was admittedly liable. It has been admitted here that the applications for execution against the other judgment-debtors are sufficient to prevent limitation as against the estate of Bindeshri Prasad. The applications which have been made are quite sufficient to keep the decree alive. The position of the appellant was not in any way altered by the agreement which was come to between the decree-holders and the co-debtors. We dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.