(1.) The revision petition is filed by a. purchaser from the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC complaining of disobedience of the decree for injunction. The defendant-judgment debtor has contended that the decree which has restrained the Municipal Committee from raising the wall in the suit property pertains to some other property and the present construction by the Municipal Committee is in some other property. The Court has rejected the plea regarding the identity but still dismissed the petition finding that the petitioner was not himself the decree holder that he has not examined the predecessor's interest. I find that there is some fundamental defect in procedure in allowing for a person who is not shown as a decree holder to prosecute the execution petition without actually registering the nature of interest which the petitioner claims. The procedure is detailed under Order 21 Rule 16 CPC if a third party claims to be an assignee or transferee of the decree. If in this case the property is purchased which was a subject matter of previous suit he obtains such interest as an assignee. The decree could be executed subject to some conditions as if the application had been made by the decree holder. The petitioner is therefore at liberty to apply under Order 21 Rule 16 CPC secure proof of the validity of his purchase by examining any person who may depose about the transfer of interest of the property which is the subject matter of suit and the court shall examine the entitlement of the petitioner as secured under the decree granted to the decree holder under the circumstances but the civil revision is disposed of granting the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in accordance with law and seek for an adjudication in the manner canvassed by him. The dismissal of the execution petition already filed shall not be taken to constitute any bar by a fresh application moved in the manner directed by this Court in this order.
(2.) The civil revision is disposed of.