Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt. C.J.
1. The preliminary objection is taken in this appeal that no appeal lies. These are execution proceedings and the appellant raised, besides other objections, two legal objections, namely, (1) that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree, and (2) that the execution petition was barred by the twelve years' rule of limitation. On both these points, the learned Subordinate Judge found against the appellant. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal.
2. The preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from these findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. In my view, the preliminary objection must succeed. No final order has been passed in execution by the learned Subordinate Judge. He has merely dealt with the two legal objections which were raised in the course of the execution proceedings. By his order he has not stopped execution proceedings from going on. What he has done quite obviously is to make an order that they are to go on to a final determination. In my view, the learned Subordinate Judge has made no order as yet which. can be the subject of an appeal. I am supported in this view by the judgment in Venkalagiri Aiyar v. Sadagopachariar (1900) 14 M.L.J. 359. For these reasons, this appeal must be dismissed with costs. A.A.O. No. 312 of 1932 is also dismissed with costs.
3. I agree.