Judgment :- 1. The revision petition by the 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 5 of 1954, Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat, is against the order in execution by the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam. 2. The revision is filed under the following circumstances. The decree was obtained on 22-6-1956 by the Cochin Commercial Bank, now represented by the Canara Bank against four defendants of whom the 1st defendant was a limited company and defendants 2, 3, and 4 were its directors. Under the decree each of the defendants was made liable to a definite sum of money. In pursuance of the decree, various execution petitions had been filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Palghat. In E. P. No. 22 of 1961 filed on 25-6-1961, the revision petitioner was described as living in Kanhikulam village, within the jurisdiction of that Court. But the revision petitioner contended before that court that he is living in Kalladikode village, which is within the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam Court, and that as such the personal execution against him was not sustainable. Again, an attempt was made by the decree holder to proceed with the execution In that court and that also was dismissed. Later, the decree-holder got the decree transferred to the Ottapalam Court for execution against the petitioner and on 19-6-1968 he filed E. P. No. 24 of 1968 against the petitioner for personal execution. In that petition, the address of the petitioner was shown again as living in Kanhikulam village which is within the jurisdiction of the Palghat Court. However, the decree-holder filed an amendment petition E. A. No. 58 of 1969 to correct the address of the petitioner as living in Kalladikode village which is within the jurisdiction of the Ottapalam Court. The revision petitioner raised objection to the amendment on the ground that more than 12 years had elapsed from the date of the decree to the date of the amendment petition filed on 27-2-1969 and that as such the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. It is on the amendment petition that the Court below passed the order allowing the amendment permitting the decree-holder to proceed with the execution. 3. It is on the amendment petition that the Court below passed the order allowing the amendment permitting the decree-holder to proceed with the execution. 3. The contention has now been raised on behalf of the revision petitioner that the court has no jurisdiction to amend the address of the petitioner and to bring the execution petition within the jurisdiction of the court as the execution had already been barred with effect from 22 61968.On a consideration of the relevant Order, Order XXI R.11 CPC, it appears to me that this contention has no substance. Order XXI R.11 (2) (b) CPC. requires the names of the parties alone to be mentioned in the execution petition and not the address. If the name of the party alone need be mentioned the present execution petition is valid and cannot be said that it is not in accordance with law. The names of the parties alone are required to be mentioned under Order XXI R.11 (2) (b) as against the direction in Order XXI R.11(ff) which states that when a decree is transferred the date of transfer and the name and address of the parties to the transfer are also to be given. So a distinction is made between the ordinary execution petition in which the names of the parties alone are to be given, and the execution petition by a transferee decree-holder. The distinction is important to show that in an ordinary execution petition the names of parties alone need be mentioned to bring it as one under the provisions of law. This view appears to be in consonance with the decision in Nathmal Mathuradas Chgndak v. Balkrishna Gangabisan Marwadi (AIR. 1964 Nagpur 152) wherein it is stated: "All that 0.21 R.11 (2) (b) required is that the names of the parties should be specified in the application. It says nothing about the address. An application not specifying addresses of the judgment debtors is, therefore, in accordance with law." In view of this decision, it appears to me that there is no force in the contention that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain an amendment petition of this nature. It would in no way affect the jurisdiction of the court to amend the address of the judgment-debtor as the original execution petition was in accordance with law. The point raised by the learned counsel for the decree-holder is baseless. 4. It would in no way affect the jurisdiction of the court to amend the address of the judgment-debtor as the original execution petition was in accordance with law. The point raised by the learned counsel for the decree-holder is baseless. 4. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.