Kulwant Sahay, J.This is an appeal by the judgment-debtors against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur dismissing their objection to the execution of a decree on the ground of limitation.

2. The decree which was a mortgage-decree was passed on 25th January 1918 in favour of two brothers Gauri Prasad and Mangal Prasad and on 25th January 1921 an application was made for execution of the decree by Mangal Prasad alone on the allegation that by a partition between the two brothers Mangal Prasad was entitled to the entire amount covered by the decree. Notice of this application was given to the judgment-debtors who filed an objection on the ground that Mangal Prasad alone was not entitled to execute the whole decree.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge, it appears, ultimately allowed the objection. He held that under a private partition between the parties Mangal Prasad was entitled to only one third of the amount covered by the decree, and that the remaining two-thirds had been allotted to his minor sons who were living under the guardianship of their mother.

4. This objection was allowed by the Subordinate Judge on 5th September 1923. On 10th September 1923 Mangal Prasad applied to the Executing Court to strike off the execution case saying that he would file a fresh application in continuation of the first application and the execution case was struck off on 20th September 1923.

5. The present application was then filed on 21st September 1923 by Mangal Prasad and his two minor sons. Objection has been taken to this application by the judgment-debtors on the ground that the present application cannot be treated as a continuation of the first application, and if it be treated as a fresh application then it is barred by limitation.

6. The learned Subordinate Judge has disallowed this objection holding that the present application must be treated as one in continuation of the first application. He has also held that the first application was an application in accordance with law and that therefore the present application which was filed within three years from the first application was also within time. He further found that limitation was saved by reason of the explanation to Article 182 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as an application by any one of joint decree-holders shall take effect in favour of all of them. He accordingly disallowed the objection of the judgment-debtors and they have come up in appeal to this Court.

7. In my opinion, the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge appears to be correct. The first application which was filed on 25th January 1921 must be treated as an application in accordance with law. It fulfills all the requirements of Order 21, Rules 11 to 14, Civil P.C. It has been contended on behalf of the judgment-debtors that this application was dismissed on the ground that it was not an application upon which any relief could be granted to the decree-holders and that therefore it could not be treated as an application in accordance with law, but an application may be in accordance with law and yet the applicant may not be entitled to any relief on account of circumstances other than there being any defect in the application itself. It has been held in Bhagwat Prashad Singh Vs. Dwarka Prashad Singh and Others, that under Article 182, Clause (5), Limitation Act, an application is one made in accordance with law, if the particulars required by Order 21, Rules 11 to 14, Civil P.C. are supplied. In the present case, we find that all the particulars required to be stated in an application for execution by Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21 had been given in the first application. The application of 25th January 1921 must therefore be treated as an application made in accordance with law.

8. The present application, which was filed on 21st September 1923 was admittedly within three years of the first application and, was therefore within time. Furthermore it appears that on the first application an order had been made for issue of notice under Order 21, Rule 22. Under Clause (6), Article 182 a first period of limitation began to run from date of the issue of that notice. That notice was issued on 23rd May 1921 and therefore the issue of the notice also saves the present application from limitation.

9. Even if it be contended that the first application was not in accordance with law the issue of the notice would give a fresh start for limitation. In Gopal Chunder Manna v. Gosain Das Kalay (1898) 25 Cal 594, a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that even if the application for execution be not one in accordance with law a notice issued under Order 21, Rule 22 upon that application would be a step which would give a fresh start for limitation. The same view was taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dhonhal Singh v. Phakkar Singh (1893) 15 All 84. In this view of the case it is not necessary to consider whether the present application can be taken to be one in continuation of the first application. Mr. Jayaswal, who appears for the respondent has not laid any stress upon this point and it is not necessary to consider it.

10. In my opinion; there is no substance in the appeal and it must be dismissed with costs.

Mullick, Ag. C.J.

11. I agree.