Reilly, J.

1. In this case a decree was obtained by the plaintiff for money against one Ramachandrayya on the 29th February, 1912. After a number of other execution petitions eventually a petition, E.P. No. 125 of 1924, was put in for execution of the decree against Ramachandrayya on the 18th February, 1924. In the course of those proceedings it came to light that Ramachandrayya had disappeared seven or eight years earlier, and therefore it was presumed that he was dead. The decree-holder in those circumstances wished to prosecute the same execution petition against Ramachandrayyas widow as his legal representative and put in an application E.A. No. 543 of 1924 for that purpose on the 5th July, 1924. It-will be seen that" that application to treat the widow as Ramachandrayyas legal representative was put in more than 12 years after the date of the decree. It was contended that on account of that lapse of time, Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevented the execution, against the widow continuing; The widow took some other objections to the execution in the District Munsifs Court. The District Munsif overruled them all. She then went on appeal to the Subordinate Judg