Kshem Chandra Gupta, J.
1. This is a miscellaneous Second Appeal in execution proceedings. The appellants had obtained a decree on the 10th of April, 1912 for Rs. 355/4/- against the respondents. The petition for its execution out of which this appeal arises was filed on the 22nd of December 1948, in the Court of the Munsiff, Phalodi. It was considered as barred by time and dismissed on the ground that a period of more than 24 years had elapsed even after the Council Resolution dated the 8th of April, 1921, published in English in the Marwar Gazette of May 21st 1921, and in Hindi in the same Gazette of May 28, 1921, whereby decrees could be kept alive only for 24 years, and for another 6 years in exceptional cases. An appeal was taken to the Additional Sub-Judge, Jodhpur, who also dismissed the same on the 5th of October 1949. Hence this appeal.
2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the above mentioned Council Resolution had no retrospective effect and could not apply to decrees passed before the passing of the said resolution. The learned Counsel for the appellants supported his argument by a judgment of the Full Bench of the Chief Court of Jodhpur, dated the 27th of February 1946 which undoubtedly supports his contention, Mr. Chand Mal who was appointed amicus curiae by the Court, on the contrary argued, that no exception in the Council Resolution of 1914 or of 1921 had been made in favour of the holders of decrees passed before those years. On the contrary, the language of the resolutions |was clear and it showed the intention of the legislature to limit the period during which such decrees could be executed to 24 years or to 30 years in exceptional cases. In support of his argument, he cited the judgment of the Judicial Committee. Izlai-i-Khas, Jodhpur, dated the 27th of March, 1948, signed by His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur on the 22nd of December 1948, by which the said Full Bench judgment has been overruled. When the said Judgment of the Judicial Committee was brought to the notice of the learned Counsel for the appellants, he conceded that his appeal had no force.
3. In the circumstances of the case, this appealis rejected. As the respondents have not put inany appearance, no order for costs is made. Inthe end, I express my appreciation of the keen interest taken and the labour put in by Shri ChandMal in tracing out the unpublished Judicial Committee judgment.