Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This revision petition has been referred to Bench as it raises an important question of law. The plaint, as the assignee of a promissory note, obtained a decree against defendant 1 to 6 the executants of the note (with whom we are not concerned) and the seventh defendant, the payee and the assignor, a Hindu female. The seventh defendant died and the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 10 her reversionary heirs became entitled each to a fourth share of the property held by her. The plaintiff then transferred the decree to the petitioner in the lower Court, who applied for execution; but nothing turns upon the transfer, as the transferee stands in the shoes of the plantiff. The question to decide is, has the decree become inexecutable by virtue of the doctrine of merger? The Court below has allowed execution and its order is challenged here by defendants 8 to 10.

2. Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, has been relied upon by their learned Counsel, but there can be no doubt that the provision does not in terms apply. It enacts that where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be execu