1. We can dispose of this appeal on only one of the grounds in the appeal memo, the fifth and we therefore express no opinion on the others.
2. The order under appeal is one refusing to raise the attachment of the property of the defendant, appellant, in execution of respondent's decree. The appeal has been resisted on the ground that the appellant hail notice to appear on 14-815 and show cause against the attachment and that he appeared accordingly, but that the court after considering his contention, that the decree was satisfied, made an order for attachment, which, it is contended, debarred him from subsequent objection on any ground. There is no doubt regarding the facts and following Mangal Pershad Dichit v. Girija Kant Lahiri I.L.R. (1882) C. 51, we must hold that the order was conclusive. Argument to the contrary has been based on the fact that the order was passed without reference to the plea of limitation now relied on and in fact without its being submitted to the court. We do not think it necessary to go through the authorities cited to show that in such circumstances the propriety of the order can be questioned by a subsequent petition, because they all relate to attempts to question it in subsequent distinct proceedings, suits or execution petitions, not as here, in the same proceeding at a later date. To allow appellant's contention would deprive the decision reached at any particular stage in an execution proceeding of finality and enable the judgment-debtor to protract that proceeding indefinitely. Law and convenience being against him, the appellant must fail. The respondent however has succeeded on a point not taken in the lower courts. We therefore dismiss the appeal, but in the circumstances, without costs.