Rajamannar, C.J.-The view taken by Raghava Rao, J., in the judgment under appeal is supported by the rulings in Modali Ademma v. Venkata Subbbyya1 and Manikam v. Ramaswami2. Mr. Raman, for the appellant contended that the later ruling of a Bench of this Court in Arunachalam Iyer v. Lingiah3, sounds a different note and that it would support his case. We do not agree with him. In Arunachalam Iyer v. Lingiah3, 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 Subbayya1 and Arunachalam Iyer v. Lingiah3. No authority has been brought to our notice which lays down that even when the order of transmission is passed alter 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 section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is dismissed with costs. K.S. ------------------- Appeal dismissed.