JUDGMENT
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.
1. It would be productive of the greatest inconvenience (if it indeed were possible) to apply the provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act of 1877 to applications made in the course of suits or proceedings, and, if the terms of the section can be otherwise satisfied, we are at liberty to construe them so as to avoid such inconvenience. There are numerous applications known to the law which would be correctly described as applications in respect of a property or right in the sense we have indicated–proceedings where a party seeks the aid of a Court to give him relief in respect of some property or right otherwise than by regular suit. Of these, the Acts regulating the rights of landlord and tenant in the North-Western Provinces and generally in Bengal afford instances. We arrive, then, at the conclusion that the provisions of the section were not intended to apply to applications in execution of decrees, and that we are not constrained to apply them to such applications.
2. The appeal is decreed, the order of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed, and that of the Munsif restored with costs in all Courts.
