Limitation for execution does not extend where an appeal stands dismissed automatically for want of prosecution.

An execution application was held barred by limitation because time had already expired before it was filed. The limitation period could not be extended by treating the appeal to His Majesty in Council as dismissed from a later date, since no final dismissal order had been made; under the relevant procedural rule, the appeal stood dismissed automatically when no effective steps were taken to prosecute it. On that basis, the application fell outside the prescribed period and had to be dismissed under the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for execution was barred by limitation in view of the date from which time began to run, and whether the dismissal of the appeal to His Majesty in Council for want of prosecution affected that period.

Analysis: The period of limitation for execution was held to have expired before the application was made. The relevant time could not be reckoned from the dismissal for want of prosecution of the appeal to His Majesty in Council, because there was no final order or decree of dismissal in that appeal; under Rule V of the Order in Council of 13 June 1853, the appeal stood dismissed without further order when no effective steps were taken for its prosecution. Since the application was beyond the prescribed period, Section 4 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 required dismissal.

Conclusion: The application for execution was barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal stands dismissed by operation of a procedural rule without a final dismissal order in the appeal, such dismissal does not extend the limitation period for execution; an execution application filed after expiry of the statutory period is barred and must be dismissed.

---