Limitation under Article 182 includes revision proceedings, and a final execution rejection can reset time for enforcement.

For limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, the term "appeal" was treated in its ordinary and extended sense to include a revision petition, so the order disposing of the revision supplied the starting point for limitation. The prior execution application was also regarded as being in accordance with law because it substantially sought execution against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, and defects in form did not defeat it. The rejection order was a final order since it terminated the execution proceeding before that court, even without a merits determination. On that basis, the later execution application was within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act, the term "appeal" includes a revision petition so that the order in revision of the High Court furnishes the starting point for limitation; (ii) whether the prior execution application was in accordance with law and whether the order passed on it was a final order within Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act, the term "appeal" includes a revision petition so that the order in revision of the High Court furnishes the starting point for limitation.

Analysis: The expression "appeal" in Article 182(2) was held to bear its ordinary and extended meaning, not a restricted one. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that revision and appeal are not essentially different in nature, the distinction lying mainly in the mode in which the superior court exercises its power. The contrary view was found to create artificial and inconsistent results in computing limitation.

Conclusion: Yes. A revision petition falls within the term "appeal" in Article 182(2), and the order disposing of the revision petition supplies the relevant starting point for limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the prior execution application was in accordance with law and whether the order passed on it was a final order within Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The prior execution application was treated as substantially seeking execution against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, and mere defects in form did not make it an application not in accordance with law. The order rejecting that application was also held to be final because it terminated the execution proceeding so far as the court passing it was concerned; finality did not depend on a decision on the merits.

Conclusion: Yes. The prior execution application was in accordance with law, and the rejection order was a final order within Article 182(5), so the later execution application was within time.

Final Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, the lower court's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for disposal according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, "appeal" includes revision where a superior court is invoked to set aside or revise a subordinate court's decision, and an order finally terminating execution proceedings is a final order even if it is not a merits adjudication.

---