D LOGANATHAN Vs. VENKATACHALAPATHY METAL WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the Assignee Decree-Holder and the revision is directed against the dismissal of R.E.A.No.114 of 1999 in Sub- Court, Salem O.S.No.139 of 1976, on the file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal as per order dated 25th October, 2000.

(2.) THE petition R.E.A.No.114 of 1999 was filed to recognise the petitioner as assignee of the decree in the above suit and transfer the decree to the Sub Court, Sankari Under Sec.39 andO.21, Rule 16, C.P.C.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 by referring theO.34, Rule 6, C.P.C., argued that if the decree amount is not realised by the sale of the mortgages property, then only personnel decree for balance decree amount is executable and as such, the revision petitioner is not entitled to proceed personally against the third defendant/third judgment -debtor by transferring the decree to Sub-Court, Sankari. THE learned counsel also pointed out that the assignee decree-holder is the son of the second defendant/second judgment-debtor.