SRINIVASAN J.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the executing court dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the bailiff had resubmitted the warrant with an endorsement that there is no such concern as Sakthi Automobiles P. Ltd. in the address given. The petitioner obtained a decree on April 23, 1981, in O. S. No. 8 of 1980, Sub-Court, Kavarathi, Laccadives Island. The execution petition was filed in the City Civil Court, Madras, as the company address was given as No. 67, Village Road, Nungambakkam, Madras. The amount sought to be recovered in the execution petition is Rs. 6, 872.75. The relief is prayed for under Order 21, rule 41, Civil Procedure Code, to orally examine the director of the company for means of satisfying the decree and also to make an affidavit stating the particulars of the assets of the company. As the notice in the execution petition could not be served because of the endorsement made by the bailiff that there was no such company in the address given by the petitioner herein, the execution petition was dismissed. It is this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition. Pending the revision, the petitioner filed C. M. P. Nos. 5242 of 1987 and 5243 of 1987. The latter is for impleading the Registrar of Companies as a party to the revision petition. The former is for directions to the Registrar of Companies to take necessary steps under section 234 of the Companies Act, so as to enable the petitioner to realise the amount due under the decree. Though C. M. P. No. 5243 of 1987 was ordered by this court on June 29, 1987, the Registrar did not enter appearance when the application was taken up for final orders despite his being served. This court passed an order impleading the Registrar and directed issue of fresh notice in the other application for directions. After service of notice, the Registrar has entered appearance and has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the application for directions travels beyond the scope of the revision petition and the directions cannot be granted. It is also stated that, from the records of the first respondent company, it is seen that the company has filed balance-sheets and annual returns required to be filed, after long delay for which additional fee to the tune of Rs. 8, 600 on various counts was levied and collected under the provisions of section 611(2) of the Companies Act. It is further stated that the Registrar is not aware of any fraud or cheating on the part of the company. The Registrar has given the registered address of the company as No. 20/1, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010, with effect from April 1, 1986. It is stated that there was a change in the original address of the company and the new address was given to the Registrar in Form No. 18 dated September 29, 1989, on January 12, 1990. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to take steps to execute the decree by giving the correct address of the judgment debtor which is now disclosed by the Registrar as No. 20/1, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Madras-600 010.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the first respondent-company has violated the provisions of sections 146 and 147 of the Act and is, therefore, liable to be prosecuted. Under sub-section (1) of section 146, a company shall, as and from the 30th day after the date of its incorporation or from the date on which it begins to carry on the business, whichever is earlier, have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed. Under sub-section (2), notice of the situation of the registered office and of every change therein shall be given within thirty days after the date of the incorporation of the company or after the date of the change, and the Registrar shall record the same. It is only under the said section that the change of address has been notified to the Registrar by the company, though belatedly. It is for the