1. This Civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners/judgment-debtors challenging the order dated 30.07.2007 passed in E.A.No.3673 of 2007 in O.S.No.7448 of 2006 by the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, transmitting the decree passed by the Second Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.7448 of 2006.

2. Mr.T.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below, ought not to have transmitted the decree to the Sub Court, Ambasamudram as contemplated under Section 3 of CPC. The learned counsel further contended that for transmitting the decree to some other court, the transmitting court should have found that the judgment-debtors must be carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court, to which the decree has to be transferred or they must be residents of the place to which the court is having jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the instant case, before transmitting the court below ought to have issued notice to the petitioners/judgment-debtors to consider the same. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the Court