The main legal point established in the judgment is that simultaneous execution of a decree in two different courts is maintainable without obtaining permission from the transferor court, as there is no specific provision in the law requiring such permission.

K. Gnanaprakasam, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in Application Nos.4026 to 4035 and 4701 to 4720 of 1990 in E.P.Nos. 57 to 71 of 1986 in C.S.No.28 of 1975.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of these appeals, are as follows:

3. The Andhra Bank Limited, Madras instituted a suit in C.S.No.28 of 1975 on the file of this Court against Zenith Lamps and Electricals Limited (in liquidation) and got a decree on 25.4.1979.

4. The appellant Ram Narain Dhattad got an assignment of the decree as per the order in Application No.4218 of 1983 and filed execution petitions in E.P.No.57 of 1986 for prohibitory order to attach the shares of H.K.Jhaver and three others of M/s. Little Oriental Balm Pharmaceuticals Company Limited, Madras. EP.No.58 of 1986 was filed to attach the property in T.H.Road, Madras 81. Another E.P.No.69 of 1986 was filed for issue of a prohibitory order to garnishee (United Pharma (India) Limited) not to transfer 100 ordinary shares of Rs.10 each of the deceased Jhaver. Yet another E.P.No.70 of 1986 was filed for attachment of 5,754 shares held by the said Jhaver in Tablets India Limited and EP.No.71 of 1986 for attachment of the property in Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Madras. Prior to filing of these execution petitions before this Court, the decree holder had filed EP.No.121 of 1985 in the High Court and the same was transmitted to Sub Court, Poonamallee, and numbered as EP.No.80 of 1985, wherein an order of attachment had been passed in respect of the vacant site purchased in the name of Jhaver. While EP.No.80 of 1985 was pending in the Sub Court, Poonamallee, the assignee decree holder filed the abovesaid execution petitions before this court against the defendants 5 to 10, who are the legal representatives of R.S.Jhaver. The defendants 5 to 10 contented the execution petitions before this court.

5. When the execution petitions came up for enquiry before the Master, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants 5 to 10 that the execution petitions filed by the decree holder simultaneously at two different places, namely, at High Court, Madras and at Sub Court, Poonamallee are not maintainable for the reason that the decree holder did not obtain permission of the High Court by filing an application and no notice was given to the defendants 5 to 11 in this regard and no order has been passed by the High Court, granting permission to the decree holder for such simultaneous execution.

6. The Master overruled the objections raised by the defendants and held that the execution petitions were maintainable. Aggrieved by the order, the defendants 5 to 11 preferred appeals.

7. When the matters came up before the learned single Judge. the Court after having taken into consideration all the aspects of the case, came to the conclusion that in the absence of the permission not having been obtained by the plaintiffs/decree holder to take up simultaneous execution, the petitions were not maintainable and set aside the order passed by the Master and allowed the appeals. Aggrieved by the same, the assignee decree holder came on appeal.

8. The only question that arises for the consideration of this Court is as to whether the simultaneous execution of one and the same decree at two different Courts is maintainable in the absence of the notice and permission not having been obtained from the transferor Court, by the decree holder/assignee.

9. Learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that there is no express provision either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Original Side Rules of the High Court that permission should be obtained for simultaneous execution of the decree in two Courts. That in the absence of express provision to that effect, the execution petitions filed by the appellant/ assignee decree holder at two different places are maintainable.

10. In response to the same, the learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted his a