G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dt. 16-6-1978 passed in execution No. 290 of 1974, on the file of the Munsiff, Chikkaballapur, holding that the assignee Subbarayappa has failed to prove the validity and genuineness of the assignment deed. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner strenuously contended that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter without obeying the imperative provision of Or. XXI, R. 16 CPC. He pointed out that the Court did not issue notice to the decree-holder who transferred or assigned the decree in his favour. ( 3 ) ONE Venkatamma, the elder sister of the revision petitioner is the decree holder. According to the present petitioner, she assigned the decree obtained by her against the judgment-debtor in his favour and he put the decree into execution. The learned Munsiff issued notice to the judgment debtor, but he did not issue notice to the decree holder or her legal representatives and enquire the matter inter se. He passed an order stating that the purported assignee did not prove that the assignment was genuine and in that view, he dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is instituted. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner invited my attention to the first proviso of Or. XXI, R. 16 C. P. C. which reads as follows :"application for execution by transferee of decree.-Where a decree or, if a decree has been passed jointly in favour of two or more persons, the interest of any decree-holder in the decree is transferred by assignment in writing or by operation of law, the transferee may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed it ; and the decree may be executed in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if the application were made by such decree-holder : provided that, where the decree, or such interest as aforesaid, has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections (if any) to its execution : "thus, the first proviso makes it imperative that the Court shall issue notice to the transferor, when the decree sought to be executed by an assignee, as also to the judgment-debtor. The court would not get jurisdiction to proceed with the execution unless under first proviso such notices are issued. The High Court of patna in the case of Baldeo Prasad v. Bhola Nath (1) has ruled that though the execution proceeding may be filed by the assignee, it shall not be executed unless the procedure contemplated under first proviso is followed by the Court. His lordship Justice Untwalia, as he then was, of the Patna High Court has observed that:"effective orders passed in an execution case filed by the transferee without taking recourse to issue and service of notice (except when an affidavit by a transferor is filed as required by the Patna amendment) will be void and without jurisdiction. "the Supreme Court in a recent decision in the case of Dhani Ram Gupta v. Lala sri Ram (2) has reiterated the same view. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the assignment gets validated only after the procedure contemplated under first proviso to Or. XXI R. 16 is complied with. The Supreme Court has pointed out that the assignment is an independent transaction. But, while stating so, the Supreme Court has supported the view expressed by the Patna High court quoted above that it is imperative on the Court to issue notices to both the transferor and the judgment-debtor to proceed with the execution. This is what the Supreme Court has observed :"it is true that while O. 21. R. 16 enables a transferee to apply for execution cf the decree, the first proviso to Or. 21, R. 16 enjoins that notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor and that the decree shall not be- executed until the Court has heard their objections, if any, to its execution. "thus, it becomes manifest that the Court does not get jurisdiction to execute the decree on behalf of the assignee unless the procedure contemplated in the first proviso to O. XXI, R. 16 is first complied with. Hence, it becomes a jurisdictional fact with which, sitting in revision, this court is very much concerned. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY no such notice was taken to the decree-holder. Therefore any order passed by the Court becomes void. Hence, it becomes a jurisdictional fact with which, sitting in revision, this court is very much concerned. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY no such notice was taken to the decree-holder. Therefore any order passed by the Court becomes void. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the case, however, invited my attention to the Explanation i rovided to O. XXI, R. 16 which reads :" Nothing in this rule shall affect the provisions of S. 146, and a transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject-matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule. "mentioning the objects and reasons for adding of this Explanation, Sub-Clause (vi) of Cl. 75 states:" An Explanation has been added to R. 16 to make it clear that the provisions of the rule shall not affect s. 146, providing for proceedings by or against representatives, and a transferee of the rights in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree. "thus, it becomes clear that the purpose of adding the above said explanation is entirely different. It does not in any way whittle down the vigour of the first proviso to O. XXI, R. 16 C. P. C. which deals with the jurisdictional fact of the executing Court. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the revision petition also invited my attention to S. 99a c. P. C. S. 99 speaks of decree to be reversed or modified for error or irregularity not affecting merits or jurisdiction and S. 99a is added to state that no order under s. 47 is to be reversed or modified unless such order has prejudicially affected the decision of [the cases. Thus, it is clear that the purpose of S. 99 and s. 99-A are entirely different. I am now concerned with the jurisdiction of the executing Court whether the Court can proceed with the execution without following the mandatory provision contained in first proviso to O. XXI, R. 16 c. P. C. Hence, neither S. 99 nor S. 99-A would come into play. I am now concerned with the jurisdiction of the executing Court whether the Court can proceed with the execution without following the mandatory provision contained in first proviso to O. XXI, R. 16 c. P. C. Hence, neither S. 99 nor S. 99-A would come into play. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, I am of the clear view that the learned Munsiff has acted without jurisdiction in passing an order without issuing notice to the decree-holder, or the legal representatives of the decree holder, who transferred or assigned the decree in favour of the present assignee and hence the revision petitioner is entitled to succeed. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Executing court. The learned Munsiff is directed to proceed with the matter after following the mandatory provisions of the Or. XXI, R. 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure. --- *** --- .