ORDER
Abdul Hadi, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is by the judgment-debtors, who are respondents 4 and 5 in EA. No. 1849 of 1986 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub-Court, Coimbatore, which was filed by the assignee of the decree from the decree-holder, praying for recognition of the said assignment. Against the Order dated 10-7-1987 in the said EA., recognising the said assignment, this revision has been filed. One of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that such an execution application for mere recognition of the said assignment of the decree is not maintainable under Order 21, Rule 16, C.P.C.. but that only a regular execution petition should have been filed. The said Counsel contended that even the earlier execution petition, viz, E.P. No. 662 of 1980 filed by the original assignor decree-holder was dismissed on 29-1-1987 and that hence the Court below should not have passed the impugned order dated 10-7-1987 subsequent to the dismissal of the said executing petition.

2. No doubt it has been held in Jugalkishore Saraf Vs. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., and Bhagwant Balajirao and Others Vs. Rajaram Sajnaji and Others, and other decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that an application merely for recognition of the assignment is defective. But the very same decisions have also held that the defect is purely technical and may be allowed to be cured by amendment of the application by adding the prayer for execution, mode of execution etc. The Supreme Court, in the abovesaid decision observed as follows:-

The respondents had in their application for execution filed before the City Civil Court not mentioned any of these particulars but had only stated that the Court should declare then the assignees of the decree…This defect, however, was not such as to preclude the respondents from obtaining the necessary reliefs.

There is also a similar observation in the above said decision in Bhagwant Balajirao and Others Vs. Rajaram Sajnaji and Others, .

3. The Court below, in the present case, after confirming that the applicants before it were assignee-decree holders, directed them to file a new execution petition for realising the decree amount. This direction is only like allowing them to convert the application into a regular execution petition. Therefore, the order of the court below cannot be called erroneous on this ground.

4. The next submission of the petitioners’ counsel is that Order 21, Rule 16, C.P.C. requires that notice of such application should be given to the judgment-debtor also, but that no such notice was given actually. This contention has absolutely no merit. First of all, there is nothing on record showing that no such notice was given. That apart, the judgment-debtor having participated in the enquiry in the court below, he cannot now come and say at the stage of revision that he was not given notice as per Order 21, Rule 16, C.P.C. In the circumstances, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners like Sampath Mudaliar v. Sakuntala Ammal (1964) 2 M.L.J. 563 have no application to the facts of the present case.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the present execution application had been filed in a different Court other than the Court which passed the decree and that hence the said execution application was not maintainable; No doubt Order 21, Rule 16 says that the transferee of a decree may apply for execution of the decree to the Court which passed the decree. But such objection was not raised before the Court below. The counter filed in the execution application has also not raised any such objection. Further Order 21, Rule 16, C.P.C. only uses the expression “may apply” and not “shall apply”. Further, Section 21(1), C.P.C. specifically says that no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity. Section 21 (3), C.P.C. further provides that no objection as to the competence of the executing Court with reference to the local limits of its jurisdiction shall be allowed by any Appellate or Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the executing Court at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.

6. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.