K. R. PRASADA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders passed in Execution appeal No. 17 of 1976, dated 2-2-1977 by the learned Principal Civil judge, Bijapur, dismissing the said appeal and upholding the objection raised by the judgment-debtor (J. Dr.) since there is no assignment of decree in favour of the appellant-transferee of the decree schedule property, he is not entitled to execute the decree. ( 2 ) I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. ( 3 ) ONE Channabasappa Kurle who was the owner of the decree schedule building obtained an eviction order against the respondent-J. Dr. in hrc No. 2 of 1973 on the ground under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. After obtaining the said eviction order, he sold a portion of the suit property which is the tenanted property in favour of the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 16-7-1974. Thereafter, the appellant filed the Execution case No. 4 of 1975 in the Executing Court that is, Principal munsiff Court, Bijapur. That execution petition was allowed by an order dated 4-8-1975 overruling all the objections raised by the respondent j. Dr. The first appeal filed against that order, Execution Appeal No. 20 of 1975 by the J. Dr. came to be dismissed by the learned Principal Civil judge, Bijapur, by an order dated 15-11-1975. Against the said order, the Second Execution Appeal No. 91 of 1975 was filed by the respondent j. Dr. before this Court and the said appeal came to be allowed by this court by an order dated 11-3-1976 and the matter was remanded to the original Executing Court to consider the objections raised by the respondent regarding the identity of the property purchased by the appellant and the plea of new tenancy set up by the respondent, by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence. Thereafter, the original executing Court after giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence and hearing their arguments, dismissed the execution petition by an order dated 12-7-1976 by upholding the objection raised by the respondent-J. Dr. that the present appellant who is the purchaser of the portion of the decree schedule property is not entitled to execute the decree, since there is no assignment of decree under execution in his favour. that the present appellant who is the purchaser of the portion of the decree schedule property is not entitled to execute the decree, since there is no assignment of decree under execution in his favour. The said order has been confirmed in the first appeal filed by the present appellant in Execution Appeal No. 17 of 1976 by an order dated 2-2-1977. ( 4 ) IT is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the courts below erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to execute the decree on the ground that there is no assignment of decree in his favour, though he is the transferee of the said property under the original sale deed executed in his favour by the original decree-holder, when this Court has clearly held in the earlier order dated 11-3-1976 in execution Second Appeal No. 91 of 1975 that the appellant being the purchaser of the decree schedule property from the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree obtained by his vendor in view of the provisions of Section 146 of the CPC, notwithstanding the fact that there is no specific assignment of the decree in writing. It is also pointed out by him that in para 4 of the said order, this Court has clearly held that the earlier view of the Court below in regard to the maintainability of the execution under Section 146 of the CPC has been affirmed and the case is remanded to the original Executing Court, only to consider the other objections relating to the identity of the property and plea of new tenancy set up by the respondent. On a perusal of the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 91 of 1975, dated 11-3-1976, it is found that the above said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct. In para 3 of the above order of this court, it is clearly held that the Court below was right in taking the view that the purchaser of the immovable property from the decreeholder is entitled to execute the decree obtained by the vendor, in view of the provisions of Section 146 of the CPC notwithstanding the fact that there is no specific assignment of the decree in writing. In para 4 of the above said order, this Court has clearly held that the view of the Court below in regard to the maintainability of the execution petition under section 146 of the CPC is affirmed. So, the same matter cannot be permitted to be reagitated by the respondent after the matter was remanded to the Executing Court. In this view of the matter, in my view, the Courts below have committed an error in reconsidering the same question again and in holding that the execution petition is not maintainable on the ground that there is no assignment of the decree in favour of the appellant, who is the purchaser of the decree schedule property. However, it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that, according to the procedure prescribed, while executing a decree by the transferee of the decree schedule property, the original decree-holder is to be made a party to the execution proceedings and the court has to order issue of notice to him in the first instance and only after hearing his objections, if any, the Court has to execute the decree on the application filed by the transferee of the decree schedule property. ( 5 ) IN support of this contention, he relied upon an earlier decision of this Court in Venkatamma v Krishnappa, H. N. , wherein it was held as under. "the first proviso to Order 21, Rule 16 makes it imperative that the Court should issue notice to the transferor, when the decree is 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 such notices are issued". ( 6 ) AT this stage, I find it necessary to refer to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC, which read as under. "application for execution by transferee of decree. The Court would not get jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, unless such notices are issued". ( 6 ) AT this stage, I find it necessary to refer to the provisions of Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC, which read as under. "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: 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 provisions 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". ( 7 ) IT is there fore, clear from the first proviso to Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC that, only where a decree is transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and the J. Dr. and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections, if any, to its execution. But, where the interest of the decree-holder in the decree is transferred by operation of law, the first proviso does not apply. Since, in the present case the interest of the original decreeholder in the decree stands transferred by operation of law in favour of the appellant who is the transferee of the decree schedule property, the above said requirement of issue of notice to the transferor-decree-holder under the first proviso to Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC does not arise. Since, in the present case the interest of the original decreeholder in the decree stands transferred by operation of law in favour of the appellant who is the transferee of the decree schedule property, the above said requirement of issue of notice to the transferor-decree-holder under the first proviso to Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC does not arise. ( 8 ) I am there fore, unable to agree with the above contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the procedure prescribed under first proviso to Order 21, Rule 16 of the CPC has to be followed by the executing Court and since the decree-holder is not impleaded as a party to the execution petition, the execution petition is not maintainable. Since, this Court has held earlier in the Execution Second Appeal No. 91 of 1975 by the order dated 11-3-1976 that the execution petition filed by the present appellant-transferee of the decree schedule property is maintainable notwithstanding the fact that there is no specific assignment of the decree in his favour, the same question cannot be reagitated by the respondent. The impugned order passed by the Court below confirming the order passed by the Executing Court that the execution petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable, cannot be sustained and the Courts below have clearly erred in taking the said view, in spite of this Court holding that the execution petition filed by the appellant is maintainable. ( 9 ) IN the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the first Appellate Court and holding that the execution petition is maintainable. The Executing Court shall proceed with the execution of the decree by ordering for issue of delivery warrant. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, I direct both parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .