1. The question is whether the execution of the decree in this case, so far as it relates to the sale of the mortgaged property, is barred by limitation; and this depends upon whether the application made on the 24th February 1899 on behalf of the appellant by the appellant's guardian was in time. No doubt judgment was delivered in this case on the 13th August 1894 and it is clear from it that the terms of the decree as to the sale of the land were left to be determined later on. The decree drawn up with reference to the judgment was not a final, or immediately executable, and effective decree so far as the land was concerned. Though the father of the appellant applied for execution, ignoring the fact that what had to be ascertained had not been ascertained before execution in the matter of the sale could issue, objections were taken by some of the defendants in possession of parts of the mortgaged property. Upon these objections a Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the values directed by the judgment to be ascertained and, on the report of the Commissioner so appointed, the District Judge passed an order on the 25th February 1896 accepting the Commissioner's valuations, and laying down the terms with reference to which the sale of the lands was to take place. It is this order which entitled the decree-holder to obtain relief in execution with reference to the sale of the lands. The application by the guardian of the appellant was within three years of this date and was therefore in time.
2. The order of the lower Court is therefore set aside and the application for execution will be restored to the file and proceeded with according to law. The respondents will pay the appellant's costs.