Judgment :- 1. Judgment-debtor in O.S.No.59 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam/respon-dent in E.P.No.59 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul is the petitioner in this revision. The first respondent herein who is the assignee has filed E.P.No.59 of 1990 in O.S.No.59 of 1983 before the Sub Court, Dindigul under O.21, Rule 16 and Sec.52 of C.P.C. to recognise him as decree holder in O.S.No.59 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam and to attach a sum of Rs.29,570.50 out of amount available in O.S.No.33 of 1985 of 1985 of Sub Court, Dindigul and also permit him to withdraw the attached amount. 2. The first respondent herein filed an application in E.P.No.59 of 1990 Sub Court, Dindigul under O.21, Rule 16 to approve the assignment made in favour of him by the decree-holder for the said application the petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner therein is a transferee of the decree referred in the petition by assignment in writing from the original decree-holder and he has chosen a wrong forum. According to him the Sub Court, Dindigul has no jurisdiction to entertain his petition, and as such the E.P. is not maintainable. It is seen that by order dated 30.1.1991 the learned Subordinate Judge has passed the following order: “Counter of 1st respondent perused. There are no sustainable objections in the counter. Objections over-ruled. Petition allowed.” Against the said order the judgment-debtor has preferred the above revision before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon O.21, Rule 16 read with Sec.42(4), C.P.C. contended that the transferee court viz., Sub Court, Dindigul has no jurisdiction to entertain the above E.P. On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the objection of the petitioner herein is not tenable, the order passed by the Sub Court, Dindigul is in accordance with law. 4. There is no dispute that originally the decree has been passed by the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam in O.S.No.59 of 1983. At the instance of the decree-holder the said decree has been transferred to Sub Court, Dindigul. Before the transferee court the petitioner who has obtained the decree by way of assignment from the decree-holder filed the impugned E.P.No.59 of 1990. 5. At the instance of the decree-holder the said decree has been transferred to Sub Court, Dindigul. Before the transferee court the petitioner who has obtained the decree by way of assignment from the decree-holder filed the impugned E.P.No.59 of 1990. 5. Now I have to see whether the transferee court viz., Sub Court, Dindigul is competent to approve the assignment of the decree. O.21, Rule 16 says, “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 tranferred 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 objection (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-Nothingin this rule shall affect the provisions of Sec. 146, and transferee of rights in the proper, 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)”. The reading of Rule 16 shows that the transferee has to apply for execution of the decree to the court which passed it and if that is so in our case the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam alone had granted decree in O.S.No.59 of 1983. The above view is also once again reiterated in Sec.42. Sec.42 reads thus: “Powers of court in executing transferred decree: (1) The court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree. And its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of Sub-sec.(1), the powers of the court, under that sub-section shall include the following powers of the court which passed the decree, namely: (a) Power to send the decree for execution to another court under Sec.39. (b) Power to execute the decree against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor under Sec.50. (c) Power to order attachment of a decree. (3) A court passing an order in exercise of the powers specified in Sub-sec.(2) shall send a copy thereof to the court which passed the decree. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to confer on the court to which a decree is sent for execution any of the following powers, namely: (a) Power to order execution at the instance of the transferee of the decree; (b) in the case of a decree passed against the firm, power to grant leave to execute such decree against any person, other than such a person as is referred to in clause (b), or clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of the Rule 50 of O.21)”. Sub-clause (4) of Sec.42 is very relevant. Sec.42(4)(a) specifically, bars such application at the instance of the transferee of the decree. In other words, the proper remedy for the first respondent herein is to make an application before the Court in which the decree was passed (Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam) and after making necessary correction in the decree it is open to him to transfer the same to the Sub Court, Dindigul for execution of the decree. After considering what is mentioned in O.21, Rule 16 read with Sec.42(4)(a) of the C.P.C., I am in entire agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No contra argument has been made by the learned counsel for the contesting first respondent. 6. After considering what is mentioned in O.21, Rule 16 read with Sec.42(4)(a) of the C.P.C., I am in entire agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No contra argument has been made by the learned counsel for the contesting first respondent. 6. Net result, the order passed in E.P.No.59 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.59 of 1983 (on the file of Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam) dated 30.1.1991 is set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed as prayed for. I make it clear that if any such application is filed by the first respondent herein/assignor before the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam to recognise him as decree-holder the same may be considered and necessary orders may be passed by the court concerned expeditiously. Thereafter as stated above it is open to the first respondent to execute the decree in accordance with law. Consequently, C.M.P.No.5034 of 1991 is closed as no order is necessary.