Judgment :- 1. The view taken by Raghava Rao J. in the judgment under appeal is supported by the rulings in Moduli Ademma v.Venkata Subbayya (1933) M.W.N. 787; and Manikam v. Samaswami (1944) M.W.N. 707. Mr. Raman, for the appellant contended that the later ruling of a Bench of this Court in Arunachalam Iyer v. Lingiah (1952) M.W.N. 817 sounds a different note and that it would support his case, We do riot agree with him. In Arunachalam Iyer v. Lingiah (1952) M.W.N. 817 the application for execution was filed in the transferee court on the 12th July 1946 no doubt before the order of transmission was made; but the actual order of transmission was made on 13th July 1946, within twelve years from the date of the decree. In the present case, however, the order of transfer was made only on 29th October 1948, after the expiry of twelve years from the date of the decree. We see nothing inconsistent between Modali Ademma v. Venkata Subbayya (1933) M.W.N. 787 and Arunachalam Iyer v. Lingiah (1952) M.W.N. 817. No authority has been brought to our notice which lays down that even when the order of transmission is passed after the expiry of twelve years, nevertheless an execution petition which happened to be filed within twelve years in the transferee court but before the order of transfer is made would save the decree-holder from the bar of S.48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is dismissed with costs.