J.S. VERMA, CJ.-This revision is by the transferee from the decree-holder against dismissal of the execution application as not maintainable at his instance. It has also been held by the executing court that the decree has already been satisfied on account of which it cannot be executed again.

2. The petitioner purchased the property, which was subject matter of the suit, from the decree-holder. This character of the petitioner has been accepted by the executing court in the impugned order. However, it has been held that there being no separate assignment of the decree, the same could not be executed by the petitioner. Obviously, the Explanation added in Rule 16 of Order 21, C.P.C. by the Code of Civil - Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 has been overlooked, which gives the right of execution to such a transferee of the property even without separate assignment of the decree. The execution application was, therefore, clearly maintainable at the petitioners instance.

3. On merits, the petitioners allegation is that the act prohibited by the decree has again been committed by the judgment-debtor. In view of this allegation, the executing Court is required to go into the merits and it is not correct in saying that the decree was satisfied earlier, if there is a repetition of the breach alleged by the petitioner.

4. Consequently, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated-7-4-84 passed by the Executing Court is set aside. The Executing Court shall now proceed to execute the decree in accordance with law.

5. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document