ORDER T.K. Joseph, J. 1. The question which arises for decision is whether a suit by the assignee of a decree for a declaration that he is entitled to execute the decree and realise the amount and also for cancellation of the order of the execution court dismissing his execution petition is barred by S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge of Quilon held that it was not barred and the third defendant has come up in revision. 2. The plaintiff who claimed to be the assignee of the decree in O.S. No. 187 of 1109 of the Quilon District Court instituted this suit for the reliefs stated above. The 1st defendant in the court below was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 187 of 1109 and defendants 2 and 3, the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor in the case. On the strength of a deed of assignment alleged to have been executed by the decree holder, the plaintiff applied for execution but it was found by the execution court that the assignment deed was not genuine. The decision was confirmed in appeal by the High Court in A.S. No. 303 of 1953 on 10-1-1956. On 17-1-1956 the original decree-holder filed an application in the execution court to record satisfaction of the decree. Before orders were passed on the same the assignee instituted this suit on 21-2-1956 obtained an order of injunction restraining further proceedings in execution of O.S. No. 187 of 1109. The third defendant in this suit contended inter alia that the suit was barred by S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This question was tried as a preliminary issue and it was held that the suit was maintainable hence this revision petition. 3. The order of the court below is based on the decision in Sarah Sukh v. Prem Datt (A.I.R.1937 Lah. 465). That was a suit by a judgment-debtor against the assignee-decree-holder who had realised the decree amount from him. The assignee's application to execute the decree and the judgment-debtor's application to record satisfaction of the same were dismissed by the execution court. Thereupon the judgment-debtor instituted the suit against the assignee to whom he had paid the amount. The original decree-holder was also made a party to the suit. The assignee's application to execute the decree and the judgment-debtor's application to record satisfaction of the same were dismissed by the execution court. Thereupon the judgment-debtor instituted the suit against the assignee to whom he had paid the amount. The original decree-holder was also made a party to the suit. The assignee contended that the suit was barred by S.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of the previous decision of the execution court. The question which arose for decision in that case was whether, in the suit by the judgment-debtor, the assignee could raise the plea that his assignment was valid in spite of the finding of the execution court against him. The trial court as well as the appellate court held that S.47 was an effective bar to the contention that the assignment was valid. In second appeal, the High Court reversed the decision and held that the dispute between the original decree-holder and the assignee which formed the subject-matter of the previous decision did not operate as a bar. This decision cannot be relied on in this case for more reasons than one. 4. Order XXI, R.16 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been amended by the High Court of Lahore deleting the provision in the proviso to R.16 regarding notice to the judgment-debtor of an application under the rule. It was held that the effect of this amendment was that the judgment-debtor was not considered a necessary party to the application by the assignee of a decree for the recognition of his assignment. This ground is not applicable here. Again, the view taken by the Lahore High Court in this as well as earlier decisions such as Ishar Das Grakh Ram v. Sali Ram (A.I.R.1929 Lah. 51.) is based on the decision of the Madras High Court in Bommanapoti Veerappa v. Chinta Kunta Srinivasa Rao (I.L.R. 26 Mad. 264) The latter was a case decided under the earlier Code of Civil Procedure where the corresponding section, namely, S.244, was in these terms: "If a question arises as to who is the representative of a party for the purpose of this section, the court may either stay execution of the decree until the question has been determined by a separate suit or itself determine the question by an order under this section". The provision for a separate suit is omitted in the new Code and what was permissive under the old Code is made mandatory now. Again, what was held in I.L.R. 26 Mad. 264 was that a suit for declaration of the validity of an assignment was maintainable but that the court passing such a declaratory decree should limit itself to the declaration and should not declare that the assignee was entitled to execute the decree. The change made under S.244 of the old Code does not appear to have been noticed in the case reported in A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 51. The omission to notice this change is pointed out by Venkatamana Rao, J. in Venkata Ramayya v. Venkata Ramayya (A.I.R.1938 Mad. 78) and Grille J. in Balchand Pratapammal v. Kachru (A. I. R 1938 Nag. 267), In both these cases a contrary view was taken regarding the maintainability of such a suit. The same view has been taken by the High Court of Patna in Sheo Prasad Singh v. P.E. Lall (A.I.R.1925 Pat. 449). Kulwant Sahay, J. held: "Lastly it has been contended that objection as regards non-payment of a part of the consideration money and as regards the transferee being a benamidar for some of the judgment debtors cannot be raised in the present proceedings. I see nothing in law to prevent these matters being raised in the present proceedings. 0.21, R.16, provides that the decree shall not be executed at the instance of the transferee without notice of the application being given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor and the object of such notice is to enable the transferor, and the judgement-debtor, to raise such objections as regards the assignment as may be available to them. The question whether title passed under the assignment is clearly a question which can be taken by the assignor as well as the judgment-debtor. The question whether title passed under the assignment is clearly a question which can be taken by the assignor as well as the judgment-debtor. Reliance has been placed upon the provisions of S.47 of the Code and it has been contended that only such questions can be allowed to be raised as may arise between the parties to the suit or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and it has been argued that the question raised here is not between one of the parties and his transferee This may be so as between the transferor and the transferee, but the transferee is clearly a representative of the decree-holder and as such the question can be raised as between him and the judgement-debtor". 5. Reference may also be made to Kundanmal v. Surajkubarbai (A.I.R.1943 Born. 455) where Lokur, J., held that the question of validity of an assignment of the decree is one falling within the purview of S.47 and must therefore be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit. Mulla, in his commentary on the Code of Civil Procedure (12th Edition) states: "Whether the assignment of a decree is valid or not is essentially a question arising between the parties and relates to execution of the decree and falls under this section. A suit for a declaration that the assignment is valid does not lie". The High Court of Travancore was also taking this view as seen from West End Bank Ltd. v. Phillipose (26 TLJ. 464; and Govinda Pillai v. Balakrishna Pillai (1945 T.L.R.612). 6. On the facts of this case I do not feel any doubt that the suit is barred by reason of S.47. The real contest in this suit is between the plaintiff who claims to be the representative of the decree-holder in the earlier suit and the judgment-debtor who contends that he has discharged the decree-debt by payment to the original decree-holder. The question to be tried is really one between the representative of the decree holder and the judgement-debtor and it relates to the discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The view taken by the court below cannot therefore be accepted, and I set aside the same. 7. The question to be tried is really one between the representative of the decree holder and the judgement-debtor and it relates to the discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The view taken by the court below cannot therefore be accepted, and I set aside the same. 7. The question, whether the suit would be maintainable if defendants 3 and 4 are removed from the array of parties and the relief against them omitted does not arise for consideration now. It is open for the plaintiff to seek appropriate amendment of the plaint and such a prayer, if made, would be considered by the court below. It appears from the judgment in A. S. No. 303 of 1943 that it was a suit of that nature that was contemplated at that stage i.e., a suit for a declaration that the assignment of the decree was valid and for recovery of the amount from the original decree-holder who has acknowledged receipt of the same. 8. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that this was not a fit case for exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this court as it would be open for the third defendant to raise the point in appeal from the decree if the final decision went against him. I do not think I should decline to exercise the jurisdiction in this case as the court below would be trying a suit which is barred by the provision of S.47. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the finding of the court below on the question of maintainability of the suit is reversed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.