JAMUNA DAS Vs. BAIJNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the holder of a decree by assignment from a person to whom the original decree-holder had assigned the decree, from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Patna made on an application under Section 47, Civil P.C., by the judgment-debtors in an execution case which the decree-holder assignee sought to execute against the judgment-debtors. The original decree-holder was a lady who was the wife of the judgment-debtor and she sued her husband and recovered judgment for a sum of Rs. 4,265. She then assigned the decree to one Bhagwan Das who assigned it in turn to the appellant who is the person who is taking out execution proceedings against the judgment-debtor.

(2.) It is a fact that the Court did not issue notice purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., to the assignors of the decree and the judgment-debtor, but on the other hand did issue notice to them under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. On receipt of that notice the judgment-debtors filed the present objection case. The lower Court has held that the decree-holder assignee has no right to execute the decree for two reasons. The first is the fact that the notice under Order 21, Rule 16 had not been issued. The wording of that order is simple and its purpose is clear.

(3.) Where the transferee of a decree seeks to execute that decree he can execute it in the same way as if the application for execution were made by the decree- holder provided always that notice of the fact of his application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor. The object of issuing notice to the transferor is for the production of the transferor and the matter of consideration or otherwise for the transfer is a matter which concerns those persons only and is not a matter of concern to the judgment-debtor.