JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This appeal is by the decree-holder. The decree was passed on the 19th January, 1932. An application for transfer of the decree for execution to another Court was made on the 19th January, 1935. Those proceedings terminated on the 19th March, 1936. The present application was filed on the 3rd March, 1939. The Respondent made an objection under sec. 47 of the CPC on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. He is an heir of the judgment-debtor and the reason he put forward in support of his application was that the judgment-debtor was already dead when the present application was filed. The learned Munsif was satisfied that at the time when the application was filed the Appellant was not aware of the death of the judgment-debtor. He accordingly dismissed the objection under sec. 47. The Respondent appealed. The learned District Judge disagreed with the Munsif and came to the conclusion that the Appellant was aware of the death of the judgment-debtor and allowed the objection. 2. In support of the appeal the following grounds have been urged: (1) That the learned Judge's decision is wrong, firstly because the bond fide belief or otherwise of the applicant is quite irrelevant and secondly because the case is governed by the provisions of Or. 21, r. 17; and (2) that the application was not an application for execution but merely a step-in-aid of execution. As in my judgment this contention is well-founded I shall not discuss the first. 3. A preliminary objection was taken with regard to the constitution of the appeal. Only one of the heirs has been made a Respondent. As the other heirs did not file any objection under sec. 47, there was no necessity for making them Respondents in the appeal. It is not necessary to consider now what effect the decision of the learned Judge will have upon their interest. 4. I have examined the application and it is quite clear that it was not an application for execution. It is nothing more than an application for a certificate of the non-satisfaction of the decree and transmission of the same to the Court at Habiganj. It was actually noted as such by the Munsif by the first order he made upon it. 5. Now, the present point came up for consideration in the case of Ram Kali v. Birbhadraman Tewari (1). It was actually noted as such by the Munsif by the first order he made upon it. 5. Now, the present point came up for consideration in the case of Ram Kali v. Birbhadraman Tewari (1). The reasons given by the learned Judges in their decision are set out at pp. 893 and 894 of the report. All I need say is that I respectfully agree with them. 6. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The order of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Munsif dismissing the objection under sec. 47 of the CPC is restored. As no attempt was made to support the order of the Munsif on this ground in the lower Appellate Court I make no order as to costs. Let the record be sent down as early as possible.