JUDGMENT : N.N. Sharma, J. This revision by judgment debtor is directed against order dated 19-4-1982 by Sri G.S Pandey, learned Civil Judge, Moradabad who disposed of two applications papers Nos. 200/C and 203/C by a composite order which is being assailed in this revision. 200/C was the objection by revisionist against the right of auction purchasers to adduce evidence which was rejected and objection 202/C filed by auction purchasers was allowed. 2. 203/C was application by auction purchasers for substituting their names in place of original decree-holder in execution application which was allowed. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. Following facts are relevant to appreciate the controversy involved in the case. 4. One C. Mayadas obtained a money decree in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- against revisionist in Suit No. 111 of 1966 from the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow on 27-2-1967. That decree was transferred to Moradabad for execution. C. Mayadas died pending the execution proceedings leaving his widow and two sons. 5. On 26-8-1974, during auction proceedings, the property in dispute to the extent of 2/3rd was purchased in auction sale by Jawahar Lal Khanna and Shanti Swarup, opposite parties 4 and 5 for Rs. 10,000/-. Jawahar Lal Khanna purchased the interest of decree holder from the heirs of C. Mayadas for Rs. 20,000/- and applied for substitution of his name in Lucknow Court which passed the decree. Name of Sri Jawahar Lal Khanna was substituted in place of decree-holder. Paper No. 198/C is the certificate sent by Civil Judge, Lucknow to Civil Judge, Moradabad showing that auction purchaser Sri Jawahar Lal Khanna has to be substituted in place of decree-holder in this execution proceeding under orders of the Lucknow Court on 25-3-1980. 6. These proceedings were pending in Moradabad Court which was the transferee Court. There is another paper 199/C1 which shows that the execution proceedings in Moradabad Court related only to the recovery of Rs. 39,738.00 and the balance was to be recovered from Nainital Court for which another transfer certificate was issued. 7. Pending the execution proceedings objection under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC was raised by judgment-debtor that the auction sale dated 26-8-1974 in favour of opposite parties 4 and 5 was liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud etc. 39,738.00 and the balance was to be recovered from Nainital Court for which another transfer certificate was issued. 7. Pending the execution proceedings objection under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC was raised by judgment-debtor that the auction sale dated 26-8-1974 in favour of opposite parties 4 and 5 was liable to be set aside on the ground of fraud etc. in publishing and conducting the sale and objection to it was preferred by Sri Jawahar Lal Khanna on 2-11-1974 paper No. ka-31/2. Another objection was preferred by Sri Shanti Swarup Gupta which is dated 20-5-1976. 8. The proceedings remained pending and the matter of adduction of evidence was postponed for several years. The judgment-dector preferred this objection that auction purchaser should be denied an opportunity to adduce evidence as he was not a person interested in the matter. He was neither a decree-holder or the purchaser or any other person entitled to share in rateable distribution of assets. This contention was repelled by the impugned order with the observations that the auction purchasers have already stepped into the shoes of decree-holder and, therefore, they have every right to oppose the objection filed by judgment-debtor under Order XXI Rule 90 Code of Civil Procedure. 9. As regards paper No. 203/C application by auction purchaser Jawahar Lal Khanna for substitution of his name in place of original decree-holder, it was observed that it was of a formal nature only as his name has already been substituted in place of decree-holder by the court which passed the decree on 25-4-1979 vide paper No. 199/C and he was simply bound by that order and so he allowed the prayer. 10. On behalf of revisionist, it was argued before me that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of judgment-debtor to show that he never received any notice about such substitution of the name of Jawahar Lal Khanna in place of original decree-holder from Lucknow Court and so the application for execution by transferee of decree under Order XXI Rule 16 CPC was liable to rejection. Order XXI Rule 16 CPC reads as follows: Where a decree order 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 condition 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: Provided also that, where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others. Explanation:--Nothing in this rule shall affect the provision of Section 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. 11. A perusal of the aforesaid rule goes to show that no notice of the assignment was necessary to the judgment-debtor although a notice was to be sent relating to execution by a transferee of decree. The point is well covered by Mst. Gulub Kuer v. Syed Mohamed Affur Hassan Khan AIR 1921 Pat 180 which posited: Order 21 Rule 16 compels the assignee to give notice not of the assignment but of the execution proceedings to the transferor and to the judgment-debtor. 12. Objection about want of notice, if any, has to be preferred in the court which passed the decree and not in the transferee court. 12. Objection about want of notice, if any, has to be preferred in the court which passed the decree and not in the transferee court. In the instant case, it is obvious that the transferee court was simply bound to carry out the orders of the court which passed the decree as was held in Udharam Baharmal v. Murari Lal IRL 1936 Send 191 which posited: Code of Civil Procedure 16--Assignment of decree by decree--holder in favour of person in another province--Court passing decree making definite order of substitution and transmitting decree for execution to Court of that province--Executing Court has to presume that Court passing decree has given notice to judgment debtor--Execution Court cannot question validity of decree. 13. It appears that these execution proceedings were already pending in Moradabad court on the basis of transfer certificate as given above. Moradabad court was bound to carry out the orders of Lucknow court which passed the decree under Order XXI Rule 28 of Code of Civil Procedure. An objection u/s 47 CPC had already been unsuccessfully raised by judgment-debtor to the same effect which was rejected on 5-7-1980 in Lucknow Court vide annexure-I of affidavit of Sri Jawahar Lal Khanna dated 6-7-1984. So In view of the principles of constructive res-judicata, It does not lie in the mouth of judgment-debtor to reagitate the same point. 14. Moreover, the auction purchasers were themselves impleaded as opposite parties by the judgment-debtor in his application under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and he went on accepting costs from them for adjournment of the proceedings and never raised such objection earlier. So these are simyly dilatory tactics to throw obstacles in the way of decree-holder from reaping fruits of his decree. 15. Learned Advocate for revisionist also pressed before me that the original record from Lucknow court must be summoned or the case should be remanded to the court below to summon that record to see as to whether the notice of these proceedings was actually issued to the judgment-debtor or not. This contention also does not appeal to me. All the relevant documents which entitled the Moradabad court to execute the decree are on record. Auction purchaser was a necessary party to these proceedings as was held in S.S. Pandey Vs. This contention also does not appeal to me. All the relevant documents which entitled the Moradabad court to execute the decree are on record. Auction purchaser was a necessary party to these proceedings as was held in S.S. Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, AIR 1961 MP 293 : (1961) JLJ 996, where it was laid down: where an application under Rule 29 of Sch. II for setting aside the sale on the ground that there was material irregularities in conducting the sale is rejected and the sale is confirmed and the applicant prefers an appeal, it is the duty of the Appellant to implead ail persons who would be affected by the acceptance of his prayer by the appellate court. Auction purchaser is one of such persons and is, therefore, a necessary party, and if he is not impleaded within limitation, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. The next submission on behalf of revisionist was that Jawahar Lal Khanna did not press his application for substitution of his name in the Moradabad court and so it was not open to him to press for substitution of his name in place of decree-holder now. In this connection, it was observed by learned Civil Judge on 4-9-1981 on application 198/C that it should be placed on file and no further order was needed. As the name of Jawahar Lal Khanna had already been substituted by the court which passed the decree and it was not open to the transferee court to go behind that order and so this application was simply superfluous and does not operate to the prejudice of opposite parties. 17. Moreover, the impugned order did not dispose of the suit or proceeding and did not cause any irreparable damage or injury to the applicant and so being an inter locutory order is not revisable vide proviso inserted by CPC Amendment Act 104 of 1976 in Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 18. So on a careful perusal of the entire facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, I find that the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs. The adiaterim stay order dated 12-5-1982 is vacated herewith. 19. Let the record be sent down to the court below immediately.