Judgment :- An interesting question arises out of the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam in E.P.No.22 of 1984 in O.S.No.143 of 1982. 2. The question is, whether a money decree containing a charge over the suit properties (movables) of the due realisation of the amount decreed can be put into execution straightaway, or as decided by the learned Subordinate Judge, the decree cannot executed as no preliminary decree had been passed giving time for the defendants. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are the following: The petitioner here in obtained a decree the respondents by filing a suit (O.S.No.143 of 1982) on two promissory notes executed the respondents, promising to repay the principal with interest at the rate stipulated It appears, the respondents admitted the suit claim, and the court passed the 4.11.1982 as follows: "(1)That the defendants do pay to the plaintiff on or before 4.5.1983 the sum of 73 p. with interest on Rs.25,445-10 p. at 13-5% per annum and on Rs.12,769-86 p. per annum from the date of plaint till realisation. (2) That there be charge over the suit properties for due realisation of the amount (3) And that the defendants do also pay to the said plaintiff the sum of Rs.3,643-50 the costs of the suit." (schedules containing list of machinery omitted) When this decree was put into execution by the petitioner the respondents resisted petition contending inter alia that the decree is not executable without a final decree. Court below, purporting to follow a judgment of this Court in Vuddagiri Ammanna Subbayya, 69 M.L.J. 854, held that the decree was not executable. Aggrieved by the of the executing court, the present civil revision petition is filed. 4. Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the in Vuddagiri Ammanna v. Gada Subbayya, 69 M.L.J. 854, will not apply to the facts case. On the other hand, the judgment in Ramaswami Naidu v. Subbaraya Thevar, 490, is directly on point. 5. Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contending contra, that the court below was right in following the decision reported in Vuddagiri Ammanna Gada Subbayya, 69 M.L.J. 854. 6. On the other hand, the judgment in Ramaswami Naidu v. Subbaraya Thevar, 490, is directly on point. 5. Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contending contra, that the court below was right in following the decision reported in Vuddagiri Ammanna Gada Subbayya, 69 M.L.J. 854. 6. In Ramaswami Naidu v. Subbaraya Thevar, 49 M.L.J. 490, the head-note brings ratio as well as the facts of that case, and the same is set out below: "Where a decree was not a decree for sale at all but one for payment of money and that the plaintiff had a charge on the scheduled property for unpaid purchase money, him in connection with a sale-deed executed in favour of defendants, in such decree-holder could not bring the property to sale without getting a preliminary sale under O.34, Rule 14." 7. In Ramaswami Naidu v. Subbaraya Thevar, 49 M.L.J. 490, a Division Bench of has taken the following view: "The fact that in a suit for money a charge has been created by the decree does not the suit into a mortgage suit and make the provisions of O.34 of C.P.C. applicable. be no question of a preliminary decree and a final decree in such a case." 8. In A.C.Dastoor v.H.A.Kandawalla, (1933) I.L.R 60 Cal 1467, wherein a charge movables was created, the court, while holding that separate suit for enforcing the unnecessary, observed as follows: "The present suit has been brought for the purpose of enforcing the charge created second term in the terms of settlement The defendant maintains that the suit is unnecessary, and that the plaintiff could have obtained all the relief to which he is entitled by the consent decree. I am of opinion that the defendant’s contention is correct uncommon for suits to be brought to enforce a charge upon immovable property created a decree. The reason for this is that, owing to the provisions of O.34, Rule 14, the person, whose favour the decree creates a charge, is precluded from enforcing it by execution, unless the decree specifically makes provision to the contrary. I do not think that applies to the case before me. The reason for this is that, owing to the provisions of O.34, Rule 14, the person, whose favour the decree creates a charge, is precluded from enforcing it by execution, unless the decree specifically makes provision to the contrary. I do not think that applies to the case before me. It is not accurate to say that, in the former suit, the "obtained a decree for payment of money in "satisfaction of a claim arising mortgage." The whole of the order is in fact inapplicable to the circumstances of the case, since it is explicitly concerned with suits relating to mortgages of immovable property." In our case, the charge was created under the decree over movable property and immovable property. Farther, the respondents admitted the liability and on that basis, decree was passed. The ratio laid down in Vuddagiri Ammanna v. Gada Subbavva, M.L.J.854, relates to immovable property, and the ration laid down in Ramaswami Naidu Subbaraya Thevar, 49 M.L.J. 490, though related to immovable property, directly helps petitioner herein. I therefore, hold that the decision in Vuddaigiri Ammanna v. Subbawa, 69 M.L.J. 854, is distinguishable on facts, and, on the facts of this case, decree is executable, and the view taken by the court below in the light of the ratio down in Ramaswami Naidu v. Subbaraya Thevar, 49 M.L.J. 490 and A.C.Dastoor H.A.Kandawalla, (1933) I.L.R. 60 Cal.1467, cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, and E.P.No.22 of 1984 in O.S.No.143 1982 is restored to the file of the executing court, and the executing court is directed proceed with the execution in accordance with law. No costs. Petition allowed.