Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 09.11.2006 passed in E.P.No.3141 of 2005 on the file of the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No. 119 of 1994 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which was filed for ordering arrest of the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor. 2. The Suit in O.S.No.119 of 1994 was originally filed by the plaintiff, by name, Tupili Sugunamma, for recovery of money. According to the revision petitioner herein, the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to pass such an order, in view of the fact that the decree in O.S.No.119 of 1994, dated 02.03.1995, has not been passed by the Execution Court (IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai), but, it has been passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and no proper transmission of decree has taken place. He would further contend that the procedure as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 16 of C.P.C. has not been scrupulously followed and therefore, the order of the Execution Court is not correct. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder/ Assignee has brought to the notice of this Court that the original decree was passed in favour of Tupili Sugunamma by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, and thereafter, an application in E.A.No.121 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and a transmission order was obtained, thereby, the decree obtained by Tuplili Sugunamma has been assigned in favour of the respondent herein and the decree has been transmitted to the City Civil Court, Chennai, and only on that basis, earlier, an Execution Petition was filed and subsequently, the present Execution Petition in E.P. No. 3141 of 2005 was filed and therefore, the present objection, which was made by the petitioner herein is devoid of merits. He would further contend that since, the Execution Court has granted further time to make the payment and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, he can always make the payment and contest the same and thus, the present Civil Revision Petition is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. I have also perused the records carefully. 5. 4. Heard both sides. I have also perused the records carefully. 5. The short point for consideration in this revision is, as to whether the Execution Court is correct in passing the order dated 09.11.2006 in the Execution Petition. 6. On a perusal of the order passed by the Execution Court, it is seen that the Execution Court has categorically stated in its order that the decree has been transmitted to the Execution Court pursuant to the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Nellore, in E.A.No.121 of 2000. The petition in E.A.No.121 of 2000 and orders passed thereon are also produced before this Court for a perusal of this Court. 7. In fact, in the petition in E.A.No.121 of 2000, the respondent herein has stated that as per Order 21 Rule 16 C.P.C., he is entitled to file a petition to recognise it as assignee/decree holder and substitute its name in the place of the original decree holder in the decree, dated 02.03.1995 and permit it to execute the said decree. The same was considered by the lower Court and has allowed the said application. 8. The argument now advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner herein was not given an opportunity of hearing, but, on a perusal of the order in E.A.No.121 of 2000, it is seen that notice was issued to the petitioner herein and he was represented by the Advocate and after hearing both parties, the transmission order was passed on 16.10.2000. Against this order, admittedly, no appeal has been filed. Thus, the said order has become final. 9. Now, coming to the Execution Petition in E.P.No.3141 of 2005, which was filed by the respondent herein, the main ground raised in the counter filed by the petitioner herein is that the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition at the instance of the alleged assignee. Thus, the said order has become final. 9. Now, coming to the Execution Petition in E.P.No.3141 of 2005, which was filed by the respondent herein, the main ground raised in the counter filed by the petitioner herein is that the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition at the instance of the alleged assignee. In the counter, it is further contended that since, the respondent herein is not the original decree holder, he has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 16 of C.P.C. The Execution Court, after considering the objection raised by the petitioner herein by way of counter and also considering the order passed in the application in E.A.No.121 of 2000, which was filed by the respondent herein seeking two reliefs, viz., (1) to transmit the decree and (2) to recognise it as the assignee/decree holder, has ultimately observed that since, it is the Execution Petition for arrest it is for the respondent herein/Decree Holder/Assignee, to prove, whether the petitioner/Judgment Debtor has got means or not. Therefore, the lower Court has ordered both parties to appear for an enquiry. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1937 Bombay 365, Baijnath Ramchander vs. Binjraj Joowarmal Battia & Company, for the proposition that a notice under Order 21 Rule 16 of C.P.C., must be issued by a Court, which has passed the decree and not by the Court, to which the decree is sent for execution. Relying on the said decision, it is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in this case the notice was sent by the Execution Court and not by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which has passed the decree. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that in fact the Advocate has appeared and has taken time. Therefore, the facts in the case cited supra will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. Similarly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 1, Arvapalli Ramrao vs. Kanumarlapudi Ranganayakulu and others, for the proposition that assignment of decree itself does not give assignee right to take part in the execution proceedings. 11. Similarly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 1, Arvapalli Ramrao vs. Kanumarlapudi Ranganayakulu and others, for the proposition that assignment of decree itself does not give assignee right to take part in the execution proceedings. He has to first obtain recognition of assignment by Court. The judgment cited supra is distinguishable to the facts of the present case and the same is not applicable to the case in hand, because, in the present case, earlier, a contempt proceedings was initiated by the original decree holder in Cont.Appln.No.151 of 1997. In the said Contempt Petition, the question of payment of money and assignment have been considered and also the order passed in the earlier Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1492 of 1996 was also considered and ultimately, the Contempt Application was dismissed. Therefore, the contention, which is now raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was rightly rejected by the Execution Court. The Execution Court has rightly observed that it is for the respondent herein/Decree Holder/Assignee to prove in respect of the means of the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor and the same cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage in this Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Execution Court. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.