Mitter, J.
1. We think that in this case the decision of the lower Appellate Court should be set aside, although we agree with the Judge in the reasons given by him in disposing of the arguments advanced before him in support of the contention that the decree was not barred by limitation.
2. We set aside the decision upon the ground that there was a decree passed, on the 11th July 1881, under the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 210 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. This point apparently was not taken before the District Judge, and from the facts of the case, as they appear on the proceedings, the point seems to arise.
4. On the 30th June 1881, the decree-holder, appellant before us, made a second application for execution. Thereupon, on the 11th July 1881, the judgment-debtor appeared and made an application, alleging that he had come to an arrangement with the decree-holder for the payment of the money, due under the decree, by instalments, and that the decree-holder had given him two months' time to pay off the money. The application was registered, and then the proceedings were struck off. We think this amounts to a direction that the decretal amount be paid by instalments as stipulated in the petition, to which the other side had consented. That being so, the present application, which was filed on the 1st March 1883, was clearly within time.
5. We therefore set aside the decision of the lower Appellate Court, and restore that of the Court of First Instance, but make no order as to costs.