Agarwala, J.This is an application against an order dismissing the decree-holders application for execution on the ground that it was time-barred. The decree sought to be executed was a decree of a Small Cause Court. The judgment in the suit was passed on 22nd May 1933. The decree was drawn up on 24th May 1933. The application for execution was made on 25th May 1936, 24th being a Sunday. It has been dismissed on the ground that the application should have been made within three years of 22nd May 1933.

2. It has been contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the executing Court could not go behind the decree and as the only date which the decree bears is the date on which it was signed, namely 24th May 1933, limitation must be computed from that date. Alternatively it was argued that in the case of a Small Cause Courts decree in view of the Form prescribed in the General Rules and Circular Orders of this Court, Appellate Civil, Vol 2. p. 122, either the date of the decree is the date on which it was drawn up and not the date of the judgment or that if the decree should bear the date of the judgment in accordance with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 7, then the decree-holder was misled by the copy of the decree which was furnished to him, and in that case he should not be prejudiced the Courts mistake.

3. The case is in many respects similar to the one decided in the Calcutta High Court by Jack, J. in Nalini Kanta Roy Vs. Kamaraddi and Others, . There a decree which should have borne the date 11th February 1929 was actually dated 16th February 1929. The decree-holder had obtained a copy of only that portion of the summons-book which contained the formal decree and was thereby led to believe that the suit had been decreed on 16th February 1929. His application for execution was made on 15th February 1932, and was therefore out of time from the date of the actual decision which was 11th February 1929. Jack, J. held, following other decisions of the Calcutta High Court, that in the circumstances of the as, the decree ought to be regarded as having been passed on 16th February 1929 on the principle "actus curia neminem gravabit". Here if the date of the decree was 24th May 1933, the application was within time. If the date of the decree should have been 22nd May 1933, then it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the decree-holder was misled by the copy supplied to him.

4. I would therefore set aside the order of the Court below and direct the execution to proceed. There will be no order for costs in this Court.