JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. These two petitions, preferred by the Judgment Debtor, are being decided by this common judgment as the common questions of fact and law are involved therein. 2. In both petitions, orders dated 18.8.2017 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court) respectively, in two different execution petitions bearing No. 24-10/2015 titled Abhay and others vs. Bhagat Ram and case No. 25-10/2015 titled Abhay and others vs. Bhagat Ram have been assailed, whereby the Executing Court, during pendency of execution petitions, on applications filed under Section 146 read with Order 21 Rules 11(2), 16 and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') by the Decree Holders/assignees, has ordered the issuance of summons to the original decree holder. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 1. CMPMO NO. 495 OF 2017 3. Original Decree Holder (Usha Verma and her two brothers Ajay Kumar and Ashok Kumar) through their power of attorney Usha Verma had filed a civil suit No. 35/1 of 2000 titled Usha Verma and others vs. Bhagat Ram against Judgment Debtor Bhagat Ram which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.2004 and the said decree remained intact uptil the Apex Court as the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) preferred by Judgment Debtor against the judgment and decree affirmed against him by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court on 10.11.2014. Thereafter, respondents/assignees had purchased the entire suit land, subject matter of aforesaid decree dated 3.3.2004 vide agreement to sell dated 10.4.2015 followed by four registered sale deeds bearing registration Nos. 741/2015, dated 10.4.2015, Registration No. 742/2015 dated 10.4.2015, Registration No. 761/2015 dated 16.4.2015 and Registration No. 762/2015 dated 16.4.2015 acquiring all rights of joint Decree Holders in the suit land. In addition, original Decree Holders have also executed deed of assignment dated 24.8.2015 in favour of respondents/assignees. 741/2015, dated 10.4.2015, Registration No. 742/2015 dated 10.4.2015, Registration No. 761/2015 dated 16.4.2015 and Registration No. 762/2015 dated 16.4.2015 acquiring all rights of joint Decree Holders in the suit land. In addition, original Decree Holders have also executed deed of assignment dated 24.8.2015 in favour of respondents/assignees. Being a transferee of the suit land and also as an assignee of judgment and decree dated 3.3.2004, affirmed uptil the Apex Court, respondents/assignees have filed an execution petition before the Executing Court, wherein original Decree Holder has not been arrayed as party and the Executing Court without issuing a notice to the original Decree Holder, had issued notice to Judgment Debtor, who has preferred objections dated 10.11.2016 under Section 47 of CPC against execution of judgment and decree on various grounds including that the decree passed in favour of the original Decree Holder has never been assigned in favour of the respondents/assignees. 4. Thereafter respondents/assignees had preferred an application under First Proviso to Order 21 Rule 16 of CPC for issuance of summons to the original Decree Holders which was resisted by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor mainly on the ground that execution petition itself is not maintainable as the respondents/assignees have filed the same without complying with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 of CPC and the said defect in proceedings is not permissible to be cured at the stage when application was preferred by the respondents/assignees. 5. The Executing Court has allowed the application vide impugned order dated 18.8.2017 filed by the respondents/assignees and has ordered to issue the summons to original Decree Holders which has been assailed before this Court in the present petition. 2. CMPMO NO. 514 OF 2017 6. Original Decree Holder (Usha Verma and her two brothers Ajay Kumar and Ashok Kumar) through their power of attorney Usha Verma had filed a civil suit No. 40/1 of 2003/2002 titled Usha Verma and others vs. Bhagat Ram against Judgment Debtor Bhagat Ram which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26.5.2004 and the said decree remained intact uptil the Apex Court as the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) preferred by Judgment Debtor against the judgment and decree affirmed against him by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court on 10.11.2014. Respondents/assignees have acquired the rights of judgment and decree passed in civil suit No. 40/1 of 2003/2002 titled Usha Verma and others vs. Bhagat Ram, affirmed uptil the Apex Court vide deed of assignment dated 24.8.2015 executed by original Decree Holders. Being an assignee of judgment and decree dated 26.5.2004, affirmed uptil the Apex Court, respondents/assignees have filed an execution petition before the Executing Court, wherein original Decree Holder has not been arrayed as party and the Executing Court without issuing a notice to the original Decree Holder, had issued notice to Judgment Debtor, who has preferred objections dated 10.11.2016 under Section 47 of CPC against execution of judgment and decree on various ground including that the decree passed in favour of the original Decree Holder has never been assigned in favour of the respondents/assignees. 7. Thereafter respondents/assignees had preferred an application under First Proviso to Order 21 Rule 16 of CPS for issuance of summons to the original Decree Holders which was resisted by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor mainly on the ground that execution petition itself is not maintainable as the respondents/assignees have filed the same without complying with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 of CPC and the said defect in proceedings is not permissible to be cured at the stage when application was preferred by the respondents/assignees. 8. In this case also, the Executing Court has allowed the application vide impugned order dated 18.8.2017 filed by the respondents/assignees and has ordered to issue the summons to original Decree Holders which has been assailed before this Court in the present petition. 9. 8. In this case also, the Executing Court has allowed the application vide impugned order dated 18.8.2017 filed by the respondents/assignees and has ordered to issue the summons to original Decree Holders which has been assailed before this Court in the present petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions raised in petitions, has submitted that under the First Proviso to Order 21 Rule 16 CPC, Court had to issue notice to the transferor but the Executing Court has failed to do so and therefore, Court, at the later stage, on application filed by assignee, after filing of objections by Judgment Debtor, is not empowered to issue the notice to the transferor at this stage as the question of maintainability of execution petition at the time of entertaining the same has arisen on account of objections raised by the Judgment Debtor and issuance of notice to transferor at this stage after entertaining the execution petition without issuing the notice to the transferor has taken away the valuable rights of Judgment Debtor and thus issuance of notice now at this stage would amount to defeating the very purpose of provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 CPC and to overcome the present situation, application should have been filed earlier at the initial stage before filing of objections by Judgment Debtor, but at this stage, inherent defect in petition as well as illegality committed by the Executing Court cannot be cured subsequent to filing of objections by Judgment Debtor and thus now the assignee has only way out to withdraw his execution petition with liberty to file afresh in consonance with the relevant provisions including Order 21 Rule 16 CPC as at this stage passing of impugned order by the Executing Court is amounting to putting the horse behind the cart as the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rule 16 CPC has affected the maintainability of execution petition because the very purpose to hear the objections of Judgment Debtor along with original Decree Holder has been ignored by the Executing Court by entertaining the execution petition in violation of mandatory provision. 10. It is also canvassed that issuance of notice to the transferor at this stage is amounting to arrive at the conclusion that the respondents/assignees are having valid deed of assignment of decree but without adjudicating such issue raised by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor in his objections. 10. It is also canvassed that issuance of notice to the transferor at this stage is amounting to arrive at the conclusion that the respondents/assignees are having valid deed of assignment of decree but without adjudicating such issue raised by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor in his objections. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/assignees has supported the impugned order for the reasons assigned therein. Referring the provisions of Section 146 and Order 21 Rule 16 CPC and by putting further reliance on the judgments in cases Udayakumar vs. Muruganandham and another reported in, (1996) AIR Madras 170, P. Janakaraj and another vs. Balasubrahmanya and others reported in, (2008) AIR Karnataka 190 and Rajbahadur Yadav and others vs. Rizvi Estates and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. reported in, (2014) Supp CivCC 613 (Bombay), dismissal of present petition has been prayed. 12. Before proceedings further, it would be apt to reproduce the provisions of Section 146 and Order 21 Rule 16 CPC, which may be relevant for adjudicating these petitions:- "146. Proceedings by or against representatives Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any law for the time being in force, where any proceeding may be taken or application made by or against any person, then the proceeding may be taken or the application may be made by or against any person claiming under him. Order 21 CPC Rule 16 16. 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.) 13. Section 146 of CPC is general enabling provisions providing maintainability of application/ proceedings by or against any person claiming his right under another person where another person is otherwise entitled or liable to take/face such application/proceedings. Order 21 Rule 16 CPC provides a specific procedure for execution of a decree by transferee of decree and it recognizes transfer of decree by assignment in writing or by operation of law and entitles such transferee to execute the transferred decree in his favour in the same way and subject to the same condition as if the application was made by original Decree Holder but with further rider that where the interest in decree has been transferred by assignment, notice of such application shall be given to the transferor and Judgment Debtor and decree shall be executed only after hearing their objections by Court, if any, to the execution of decree. 14. Explanation of Rule 16 provides that provisions of Section 146 CPC will not be affected by this Rule and transferee of rights in the property, which is subject matter of suit, may apply for execution of decree without a separate assignment of decree as required by this Rule. 15. In Dhani Ram Gupta and others vs. Lala Sri Ram and another reported in, (1980) 2 SCC 162 has held that First proviso to Order 21 Rule 16 enjoins that notice of application for execution shall be given to the transferor and Judgment Debtor and that decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections, if any, to its execution, however, it further lay down that property in decree passes to the transferee under a deed of assignment when the parties to the deed and assignment intend such property to pass and it does not depend on the recognition of transfer and Order 21 Rule 16 CPC neither expressly nor by implication provides that assignment of decree does not take effect until recognizes the Court. Therefore, recognition of assignment/transfer, before issuing notice to original Decree Holder/transferor, by the Court for issuing notice to Judgment Debtor does not vitiate the execution proceedings. 16. Therefore, recognition of assignment/transfer, before issuing notice to original Decree Holder/transferor, by the Court for issuing notice to Judgment Debtor does not vitiate the execution proceedings. 16. The judgment passed by the Madras High Court in Udayak Kumar's case (supra) is based on the verdict of the Apex Court in Dhani Ram Gupta' case (supra) but dealing with a case having different facts which are not applicable in the present case. However, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court that transfer by assignment does not require recognition by the Court, plea of petitioner that on account of non-issuance of notice to the original Decree Holders at the initial stage, the execution petition is not maintainable, is not sustainable. 17. The Apex Court in Sm. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Smt. Nirmala Sundari Dassi and another reported in, (1958) AIR SC 394 has held the object of Section 146 CPC is to facilitate the exercise of rights by person in whom they come to be vested by devolution or assignment and being a beneficent provision should be construed liberally and so as to advance justice and not in a restricted or technical sense. 18. The Karnataka High Court in P. Janakaraj's case (supra) has also relied upon this judgment and has permitted the continuation of proceedings by the assignee/Decree Holder in absence of original Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor who had failed to put in appearance despite service. 19. The Bombay High Court in Rajbahadur Yadav's case (supra) has held that it is not necessary that Decree Holder should assign the decree in favour of the subsequent purchaser as subsequent purchaser of the property, which is subject matter of decree, acquires the rights to execute the decree in view of provisions of Section 146 and Order 21 Rule 16 CPC. Therefore, after execution of sale deeds of property involved in decree, vendee enjoys status of transferee as envisaged in Order 21 Rule 16 read with Section 146 CPC. 20. In the present case, the respondents/assignees have not only purchased the suit land, but they are also holding the deed of assignment of decree. Therefore, respondents/assignees are very much entitled to file the execution petition. 20. In the present case, the respondents/assignees have not only purchased the suit land, but they are also holding the deed of assignment of decree. Therefore, respondents/assignees are very much entitled to file the execution petition. Bare reading of Explanation to Rule 16 of Order 21 CPC makes it clear that for a purchaser of suit property no separate assignment of the decree, as required under this Rule, is necessary for executing the judgment and decree with respect to property, subject matter of decree, purchased by him. 21. Therefore, there is no doubt about maintainability of execution petition under Rule 16, but execution of decree is subject to hearing the objections of transferor and Judgment Debtor, if any. 22. First Proviso to Rule 16 provides issuance of notice of execution application to transferor and Judgment Debtor. It is true that it would have been better, for the purpose of convenience as well as compliance of provision of this proviso that assignee/transferee should have arrayed transferor/original Decree Holder as party but at the same time it is also clear that It does not contemplate that such notice is to be issued on asking of or filing of an application by assignee/transferee. It enjoins the duty upon the Court to issue such notice. 23. In any case, there is also no bar to the assignee seeking the execution of decree, to file an application for issuance of such notice if Court fails to issue such notice before execution of decree and also where assignee/transferee has failed to array transferor as party at initial stage. 24. In the present case, notice was issued by the Court to Judgment Debtor but not to original Decree Holder whose details were very much available in the certified copy of judgment and decree, filed with application for execution, and in any case, the Court was empowered to ask any such details, if not available on record, as it has been specifically mentioned in first para of application for execution that applicants are assignees of original decree and it is also evident from cause title of application wherein Rule 16 has also been specifically mentioned. No doubt, petitioner/Judgment Debtor has filed their objections, but the fact remains that execution application has not been decided yet in either way and respondents/assignees have preferred an application for issuance of notice to the transferor/original Decree Holder. No doubt, petitioner/Judgment Debtor has filed their objections, but the fact remains that execution application has not been decided yet in either way and respondents/assignees have preferred an application for issuance of notice to the transferor/original Decree Holder. Therefore, plea of petitioner that allowing this application at this stage has amounted to defeat the very purpose of provisions of Rule 16 is not sustainable. 25. Provisions of law are made for doing the substantial justice and unless irreparable loss or prejudice is caused to the opposite party, every procedural defect, should be permitted to be cured, for enabling the Court to do substantial justice. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the plea of petitioner that at this stage of execution petition, the defect cannot be permitted to be cured that too when it was also duty of the Court to issue the notice to original Decree Holder/transferor inviting his objections, if any, along with Judgment Debtor and assignees have themselves filed an application for summoning the original transferor before passing of an effective order to execute the decree. 26. Plea of petitioner that issuance of summons to the original Decree Holder/transferor is amounting to arrive at the conclusion that petitioners are having valid deed of assignment is misconceived as the said issue is yet under consideration of the Executing Court subject to objection of transferors if they choose to appear and file objection, if any, after service. It is also one of the purposes of provisions of Proviso to Rule 16 which provides that decree shall not be executed until the objections of transferrer/original Decree Holders and Judgment Debtor are heard. In case transferors do not appear after proper service, assignment/transfer is to be considered valid unless proved contrary. 27. In view of above discussion, I find no irregularity or illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted. Accordingly both petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. As on dismissal of petitions, interim stay stands vacated. Parties are directed to appear before the Executing Court on 10th January, 2019. 28. Copy of judgment be sent to the Executing Court, henceforth.