JUDGMENT Kumaraswami Sastri, J. 1. The only point for determination is whether, an application by some of the decree-holders legal representatives not purporting to be on behalf of the other legal representatives also is sufficient to save limitation. 2. No authority has been cited to show that such an application is not covered by the Explanation I of Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The mere fact that the Court would have required the persons applying to give security for the shares of the other legal representatives, will not make an application one not falling under Clauses 5 and 6. So far as defendants are concerned Ramanuj Sewak Singh v. Hingu Lal 3 A. 517 decides that an application for execution against one of several legal representatives saves limitation and there is no reason why the same rule should not apply when one of the plaintiffs representatives applies for execution. Ponnampilath Parapravan Kuthath Haji v. Ponnampilath Parapravan Bavotti Haji 30 Ind. Cas. 755 : 18 M.L.T. 255 : 29 M.L.J. 431 Subramanya Chettiar v. Alagappa Chetty 3 M. 79 and Shib Chunder Dass v. Ram Chunder Poddar 16 W.R. 29 are in point. 3. The District Munsif is right in holding that the application is not barred. 4. I dismiss the petition with costs.