JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. 1. The plaintiffs-appellants suit was instituted against the defendant-respondent to have a declaration that as assignees of a decree obtained by one Parshadi Lal, against the defendant Mahant Salig Ram and another, they were entitled to take out execution of that decree. 2. Plaintiffs, it appears, applied under section 232 for execution of the decree, but the application was dismissed for default of appearance. A further application for execution was also dismissed on the ground that the previous application was a bar to the entertaining of a second application. It was clearly open, as it appears to us, to the plaintiffs-appellants, upon the refusal of the Court to execute their decree, under the provisions of section 232, to have appealed against that order as being one which came under section 244, the question which they sought to raise being one relating to the execution of the decree, and being between the parties to the decree or their representatives. We entirely concur in the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Badri Narain vs. Jai-Ram, [1894] I.L.R. 16 All. 483. 3. It Was there held that a person, who within the meaning of section 232 was a transferee of a decree is a representative of the decree-holder within the meaning of section 244 qua the decree. This being so, the plaintiffs appear to have mistaken the remedy which was open to them, and instituted a suit which they were precluded from doing by the express provisions of section 244. Now an application is made to us to treat the suit as one under section. 244. No doubt, there are cases, in which the Court would accede to such an application but having regard to the fact that no such application was made to either of the lower Courts, and the suit was determined on appeal so long ago as the year 1901, we do not think we should be justified at this eleventh hour in acceding to this application. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.