Limitation in execution proceedings follows the law in force on filing; transfer proceedings do not extend time for fresh execution.

The law governing an execution application is the law in force on the date it is filed, so section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied and the limitation bar attached. A decree-holder cannot claim an indefinite right to execute under the earlier procedural regime. A request for transfer of a decree or for a certificate is not itself an execution application, and earlier proceedings concerning different property did not keep limitation alive for the present request. The later execution application was therefore treated as a fresh application, and the limitation objection succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the execution application was barred by limitation under the governing limitation law in force when the application was made, including the 12-year bar in section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the application for execution could be treated as a mere continuation of the earlier application for transfer of the decree and certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the execution application was barred by limitation under the governing limitation law in force when the application was made, including the 12-year bar in section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The applicable law for an execution application is the law in force on the date of the proceeding. A decree-holder has no vested right to postpone execution indefinitely merely because the decree was passed under the earlier code. Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 therefore governed the application, and the bar of limitation attached.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation under section 48 succeeded against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the application for execution could be treated as a mere continuation of the earlier application for transfer of the decree and certificate.

Analysis: A request for transfer of decree or grant of certificate is not itself an execution application. The earlier proceedings related to different properties and did not amount to execution against the properties covered by the present application. The present request was therefore a fresh execution application and not a continuation of the earlier step.

Conclusion: The later execution application could not be treated as a continuation of the earlier transfer proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the execution application was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: The law of limitation governing an execution application is the law in force on the date of the application, and a transfer or certificate proceeding does not extend limitation for a subsequent fresh execution application against different property.

---