Patanjali Sastri, J.
1. In this case the Court below has dismissed an application for relief under Section 15 of Act IV of 1938 filed by the petitioner against whom a decree had been passed for poruppu payable to the respondent. The ground of dismissal was that the application was barred by limitation. The Court relied on the decision in Venkata Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu v. Venkataseshacharlu : AIR1942Mad78 in support of this conclusion. That decision no doubt holds that a procedure analogous to that laid down in Section 19 should be followed with reference to decrees for rent which do not strictly fall within that provision. This does not however mean that in dealing with applications of this kind, the Court ought to apply the time-limit specified in Section 20 of the Act which in terms applies only to applications for relief under Section 19. It is one thing to say that the Act having indicated no appropriate procedure for scaling down decrees for rent as provided by Section 15 of the Act a procedure analogous to that provided in Section 19. for decrees for the repayment of 'debts' (which term does not include rent) should ' be followed, but it is a different thing to hold that the time-limit prescribed in Section 20 should be applied to applications for relief under Section 15 in respect of decrees for rent; for this would be enacting a new rule of limitation based upon analogy which the Court, in my opinion, has no power to do.
2. The order of the Court below is set aside and the case is remanded for disposal according to law. Costs will abide and follow the result.