JUDGMENT Daniels, J.
1. This appeal arises out of an execution proceeding and the question for consideration is whether an application made by the representatives of the deceased decree-holder for the substitution of their names was barred by time. The decree-holder died during the pendency of the execution proceeding on the 21st October 1918. As his legal representatives did not appear to proceed with the execution, the Court struck off the execution proceeding on the 14th December 1918. Courts by Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The case set forth in the plaint is that the defendants entered into a contract with the plaintiff's predecessor to pay him a sum of Rs. 210 for the right to collect weightment dues; that they only paid a portion of the amount due from them, and that a sum of Rs. 61-7-0 including interest is still due. It is suggested on behalf of the appellant that the case comes under Clause 13 of the Schedule, being a suit to enforce payment of allowances called malikana, hag, cesses, or other dues. The suit is not, however, to enforce payment of cesses or dues from persons by whom these dues were payable. It is a right to recover a sum due under a contract entered into between the defendants and the plaintiff. The appellant contends that on the merits the Court below has overlooked the ruling in Sadanand Pande v. Ali Jan 5 Ind. Cas. 288 : 32 A. 193 : 7 A.L.J. 176. I am, however, precluded from going into this question as, in my opinion, the preliminary objection is correct and no second appeal lies. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.