JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - The above appeals arise out of some execution proceedings which are concerned with the following decrees: (1) Decree No. 67 of 1926 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, Indarman v. Har Sarup; (2) Decree No. 164 of 1928 in the Court of Additional Subordinate judge, Har Sarup v. Anand Sarup; (3) Decree No. 14 of 1929 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Har Sarup v. Anand Sarup; (4) Decree No. 2 of 1929 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Har Sarup v. Anand Sarup; (5) Decree No. 71/43 of the Revenue Court, Anand Sarup v. Har Sarup. 2. Indarman executed his decree No. 1 above by attaching decrees Nos. 2 and 3, in which liar Sarup is the decree-holder, and on July the 22nd as the attaching creditor he proceeded in execution of decree No. 2 in which Anand Sarup is the judgment-debtor. Anand Sarup made an objection on August the 6th and on 28th of October he applied for the execution of his revenue court decree No. 5 above by the attachment of decree No. 2, in which he himself is the judgment-debtor. His application was dismissed though not for reasons which have been argued before me. The point taken before me in appeal is that as the revenue court decree is for a larger amount than decree No. 104 of 1928 in the Civil Court, the latter cannot be executed against Anand Sarup, because he is entitled to set off the amount in the revenue court decreed in his favor. The revenue court decree, it will be remembered, is against Har Sarup who is the decree-holder in civil court decree No. 164 of 1928, though it is another the attaching creditor Indarman, who is actually executing the decree. The objection made by Anand Sarup before the executing Court was however to the effect that the civil court decree could not be executed against him by Indarman because there had already been an adjustment between him (Anand Sarup) and Har Sarup. The lower court has disbelieved this because the application made by Anand Sarup to execute the whole of his revenue court decree of October the 28th showed that there had been no adjustment on this later date. The lower court has disbelieved this because the application made by Anand Sarup to execute the whole of his revenue court decree of October the 28th showed that there had been no adjustment on this later date. Nothing has been said in this Court to show that this conclusion of the executing court is not correct, but it is argued that even if there was no adjustment and Anand Sarup is still liable under the Civil Court decree, he nevertheless has a right to attach that decree in the circumstances given above, and to adjust the amount in execution of his revenue court decree. In arguing the case for the Appellant, Dr. Asthana has admitted that the provisions of Order 21, Rules 18 and 19 do not in terms apply, but it is submitted that the principle underlying those rules for the adjustment of cross-claims in execution must also be held to app y where the cross-claims have arisen in different courts. 3. An objection was taken on behalf of the Opposite-party by Mr. S.N. Seth that under Order 21, Rule 53, the court which passed the decree must issue notice to the other court under Clause (b) of the rue, and this is not the case here. The revenue court decree was obtained in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Amroha, and the decree-holder wished to execute it by the attachment of a house in Moradabad so the decree wan transferred for execution to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Moradabad, and it is this Court which has issued the precept to the Civil Court for the attachment of the Civil Court decree. This argument has however been met by reference to Sections 39 and 42, Code of Civil Procedure. It is the decree itself which is trans erred for execution, and u/s 42 the court executing the decree after transfer has the same powers as the court which passed the decree and must therefore be deemed to be the court which passed it for the purposes of Rule 53 of Order 21. I do not however agree with Dr. Asthana that the principle underlying Rules 18 and 19 of Order 21 can be applied to a cross-claim arising in a different court. I do not however agree with Dr. Asthana that the principle underlying Rules 18 and 19 of Order 21 can be applied to a cross-claim arising in a different court. It has been admitted that as the Rules are worded, an adjustment in such a case cannot strictly be allowed, and in the case of Ponnusamy Madar v. Doraisamy Ayyar (1909) 62 Mad. 336: 1 Ind. Cas. 247: 5 Mad. L.T. 144, a Bench of the Madras High Court has definitely held that Section 246 Code of CPC applies only where both the decrees which are sought to be set off against each other are before the court for execution. The revenue court decree in the present instance not only is not before the Civil Court for execution but never could be before that court for execution. I have not been shown any authority for disagreeing with that pronouncement, arid I therefore dismiss the appeals with costs.