JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - The judgment debtor no.3 whose objections were rejected by the Execution Court has come forward with the present Revision. 2. One Tarsem Chand obtained a money decree as against the judgment debtors. His daughter Rajni Bala laid the execution as against the judgment debtors. The property of J.D. No.2 was attached but in the meantime Rajni Bala assigned the decree in favour of Asha Rani, the wife of J.D. No.2 Som Nath. In the aftermath of the assignment of the decree in favour of Asha Rani, the Execution Petition laid by Rajni Bala was withdrawn and the attachment of the property of J.D No.2 was released. Asha Rani on assignment stepped into the shoes of the decree holder and laid a fresh execution application. 3. The J.D. No.3 filed objections to the execution petition laid by Asha Rani on the ground that there was no provision to purchase any decree from the original decree holder. As per Section 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure, transferee could execute the decree against the J.D. only subject to equity. It was contended that Asha Rani had purchased the decree just to pressurise J.D. No.3. During the pendency of the execution, wife of J.D. no.2 had purchased the present decree from the decree holder Asha Rani. On the basis of statement of Asha Rani, the property of J.D. No.2 which was originally attached was released. In view of the above, the Execution Petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed, it was contended in the objection application. 4. The Execution Court held that Asha Rani being the transferee of the decree dated 8.2.2011 was entitled to maintain the Execution Petition. In as much as the decree assigned to Asha Rani was not fully satisfied, she was entitled to lay the execution application. It was further observed that the objections had been raised only to delay the execution. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would vehemently submit that J.D. No.2 had virtually purchased the decree in the name of his wife just to wriggle out of his liability. It is a fraudulent transfer of decree in order to clamp the J.D. no.3 with entire liability. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner would vehemently submit that J.D. No.2 had virtually purchased the decree in the name of his wife just to wriggle out of his liability. It is a fraudulent transfer of decree in order to clamp the J.D. no.3 with entire liability. Referring to Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he would submit that without putting on notice the transferor and the judgment debtor, Execution Petition filed by the transferee was not maintainable. He would also submit that a decree for payment of money transferred by one judgment debtor to another judgment debtor was not executable as against the other judgment debtor. Therefore, it is his submission that the objections raised by J.D. No.3 may be sustained. 6. Rajni Bala being the decree holder is entitled to transfer the decree in favour of the 3rd party. The only restriction on the transferee as contemplated under Section 49 CPC is that the transferee of a decree who stepped into the shoes of the original decree holder shall hold the decree subject to equities, if any, which the judgment debtor might have enforced against the original decree holder. In the instant case J.D. No.3 had not pleaded any equity as against the original decree holder. Therefore, Asha Rani being the transferee is entitled to maintain the execution application. As the judgment debtors in the instant case were liable to answer the claim jointly and severally, the transferee Asha Rani could successfully lay execution against all the judgment debtors or any one of them. 7. True it is that Asha Rani happened to be the wife of J.D. No.2. Though she is the wife of J.D. No.2, she maintains her separate legal entity and therefore she is entitled to purchase a decree. It may be a case where she being the purchaser of the decree did not propose to proceed against her husband who is J.D. No.2. She has every right to execute the decree as against the other judgment debtors. 8. It is not as if no notice was given to J.D. No.3 in the application filed by Asha Rani for execution. The transferor Rajni Bala had not complained of non issuing of notice to her. She has every right to execute the decree as against the other judgment debtors. 8. It is not as if no notice was given to J.D. No.3 in the application filed by Asha Rani for execution. The transferor Rajni Bala had not complained of non issuing of notice to her. The objections raised by J.D. No.3 had been heard and proper order had been passed by the Executing Court in terms of the proviso under Order 21 Rule 16 CPC. Further, J.D. No.2 had not purchased a decree. It was only his wife who purchased the decree. Therefore, it cannot be legally contended that Asha Rani wife of J.D. No. 2 cannot maintain an execution application as against J.D. No.3. 9. In view of the above, I find that the Execution Court has rightly rejected the objections raised by J.D. No.3 and proceeded with the execution application. 10. The Revision petition is wholly devoid of merit. Therefore, the Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------