JUDGMENT Stuart, J.
1. Musammat Inda Kunwar wag plaintiff in a suit against Brij Lal. The Trial Court decreed her suit in part. The High Court in appeal decreed the whole. The Privy Council upheld the decision of the High Court; with a modification in one particular. Under the decree of the High Court Inda Kunwar bad realised the costs from Brij Lal, while in the Privy Council it was directed that the parties should bear their own costs beth to the Privy Council and in the High Court. The result of this was, that Inda Kunwar had to restore to Brij Lal the costs of the High Court which she had recovered from him. Inda Kun war is now dead. She was represented first by her husband, Madhusudan Das, and on his death is now represented by his son, Damodar Das Brij Lal made an application for restitution of the costs which he had paid to Inda Kunwar as the costs incurred in the High Court and which she had obtained from him, An objection was made by Damodar Das that application was time-barred. The application was made more than three years but less that twelve years from the date of the decree of the Privy Council. The lower Courts have applied Article 183 of the Limitation Act (First Schedule, Act IX of 1908) and held that the application was within time. Damodar Das contests this decision in execution first appeal. I agree with the lower Courts that this application of Brij Lal is an application to enforce an order of His Majesty in Council. The learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out to me that the matter falls under the provisions of Section 144, Act V of 1908, It does fall under the provisions of that section but this does not alter the fast that the period of limitation is twelve years, as it is an application to enforce an order of His Majesty in Council, It can be nothing else. The only authority for the recovery of the costs which Brij Lal paid to Musammat Inda Kunwar is the order of His Majesty in Council. There is no other authority for their recovery. This thus is an application to enforce that order. I dismiss this appeal with costs. Brij Lal has made a cross objection that the lower Court has not allowed him sufficient costs. I find on the facts that the amount of costs due to him is Rs. 996 and not Rs. 1,128, I, therefore, dismiss his cross-objection, Brij Lal will pay his own costs of the cross objection and those of Damodar Das. Damodar Das will pay his own costs of the appeal and those of Brij Lal.