1. It must be inferred from the Sheristadar’s report on the receipts of 1889 and the judge’s subsequent order thereon that there was a request for payment of the money realized in satisfaction of the decree, and such request as sufficient to keep the decree alive, as held in Venkatarayalu v. Narasimha, I. L. R, 2 M, 174.
2. Though the judge considers the opinion expressed in I. L. R, 2 M, 174 to be a mere obiter dictum, it was certainly one of the grounds of decision in the case and we agree with it. With reference to the observation in Hem Chunder Chowdhry v. Brojo Soondury Debee, I. L. R, 8 C, 89 that the “money may be drawn at any time,” it seems to us that in deciding whether any particular act is or is not an application for, or step in aid of execution, it is the nature of the act that must be looked to and not the time at which it may possibly be done.
3. We set aside the order of the District Judge and direct that the execution be proceeded with.
4. The costs of this appeal will be costs in execution.