1. This appeal can be dealt with very briefly. The only question in it is whether the order which stayed the execution of the decree amounted to a stay which would be within Section 15, Limitation Act. Waller, J. held that it was such a stay and was a final one so long as it lasted and that therefore the execution petitioner was entitled to bring himself within Section 15, Limitation Act. In our view, the stay was a limited one. It was at order merely staying the Court. It did hot put an end to the rights of either the judgment-creditor or the judgment-debtor to apply for execution which within the plain terms of the order they are entitled to do. The execution of the decree therefore remained stayed, for just so long as the judgment-creditor or the judgment-debtor chose not to apply for execution. As soon as either of these parties applied for execution, then the stay would be removed. It was thus within the power of the execution petitioner at any time himself to remove the stay and under these circumstances, in our view, it is impossible to say that this is a ease which comes within Section 15, limitation Act.
2. Therefore this appeal must be allowed with costs here and in the lower appellate Courts. We are very much indebted to Mr. G. Rajagopalan for the great trouble he has taken in appearing here to argue the case as amicus curiae. He has given us very great assistance and we are very much' obliged to him.