These three revision petitions raise the same question relating to limitation and the petitioner is the same in all the three petitions. They arise out of three execution petitions filed by the petitioner in S.C.Nos.1926 of 1937, 899 of 1938 and 900 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court of Madhurai. They were dismissed by the trial Court as being barred by limitation under the following circumstances.

These execution petitions were filed by the present petitioner as an assignee of the decrees obtained by one K.G. Krishnaswami Iyer. The original decree-holder was adjudged an insolvent in I.P.No.20 of 1943 and all his properties became vested in the Official Receiver of Madhurai. In the course of the administration of the estate the Official Receiver sold the properties in a public auction and they were purchased by the present petitioner. Subsequently the Official Receiver assigned these decrees to her by a document. Thereafter the assignee-decree-holder filed applications for recognition of the assignment and for transmission of the decrees to the Court of the District Munsif of Devakottah for execution. As the execution petitions were not accompanied by the assignment deeds and as the dates of the transfer of the decrees in favour of the petitioner were not mentioned in the execution petitions they were dismissed in December, 1944. Within three years of this dismissal the present execution petitions, which have given rise to these revision petitions, were filed by the assignee-decree-holder.

The District Munsif dismissed these applications being of opinion that the applications filed in 1944 did not serve as steps-in-aid of execution as the latter according to him were not in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act and therefore could not keep the decrees alive. The aggrieved assignee-decree-holder has filed the present revision petitions against those orders.

The question, therefore, to be considered by me in these revision petitions is whether the view of the trial Court that the execution petitions filed in 1944 were not in accordance with law is correct or not. The chief ground of decision of the lower Court is as the failure to file an assignment deed in favour of the assignee-decree-holder along with the execution application would give rise to a great deal of fraud, an application not accompanied by an assignment deed should not be considered to be one in accordance with law. I am not able to see how such an execution petition can give rise to any fraud. It appears to me that the difficulties envisaged by the trial Court are not real. The assignment of a decree can be recognised only after giving notice to the decree-holder under Order 21, rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, and it is only when it is satisfactorily established that the assignment was as a matter of fact made by the original decree-holder that it is recognised by the Court.

Further the omission to file the assignment deed would not amount to such a defect as to render the execution petition not one in accordance with law because the filing of an assignment deed along with an execution application is not required under Order 21, rule 11. It is only when the statutory provisions of Order 21, rule 11 are disregarded, it may be said that the execution petition is not one in accordance with law. Therefore, although the application was not accompanied by an assignment deed, the execution petitions filed in 1944 would still come under Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act if the other relevant provisions of law were complied with.

It has been held in a number of cases that failure to furnish a copy of the decree would not make an execution petition one not in accordance with law. In Arunachala Reddiar v. Muthusadasiva Mudaliar1, it has been laid down by a Bench of this Court that an execution petition filed without a copy of the decree cannot be considered to be one not in accordance with law within the meanin