The jurisdiction of the executing court is determined by the amount involved in the execution, not the value of the subject-matter of the suit. A decree for costs awarded by the appellate court is a final decree and is executable. It is not necessary to implead all the judgment debtors as respondents to the execution petition, as the decree is joint and several and the certified copy of the decree was filed along with the execution petition.

K. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Judgment Debtors in O. S. 1 of 1961 on the file of District Court, Nalgonda are the appellants here.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated: The respondents 1 to 3 herein obtained a preliminary decree in O. S. 1 of 1961 on the file of the district Court, Nalgonda for partition of certain immovable properties. An appeal was preferred to the High court against the said decree in A. S. 72 of 1962 and the appeal was dismissed, and the preliminary decree, confirmed. The respondents then filed an application in the district Court, Nalgonda, for execution of the decree to the extent of costs awarded by the High court in appeal. It appears that the costs awarded by the trial court were already deposited by the judgment debtors and withdrawn by the decree-holders respondents.

( 3 ) THE District Court, Nalgonda transferred the execution petition to the district Court, Mahaboobnagar, which in its turn transferred the same to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar. When notices were issued to the judgment-debtors-appellants, they raised several objections to the maintainability of the execution petition in that court. The first objection was that all the judgment-debtors should have been impleaded as party-respondents to the execution petition and the petition was not maintainable if they were not impleaded. This objection was overruled by the lower court on the ground that the decree was joint and several and that impleading of all the judgment-debtors was not necessary as the certified copy of the decree was filed along with the execution petition and that under the proviso to O. 21, R. 11 (2), C. P. C. when a certified copy of the decree is filed, the names of the parties, the date of the decree and the amount of costs need not be given in the application. It also found that the other judgment-debtors being minors, the decree-holders were justified in proceeding against judgment-debtors the appellants herein. In this view the lower court overruled the first objection.

( 4 ) THE Second objection raised was that notices should have been issued to all the judgment debtors by the district Judge, Nellore and not by the subordinate Judges court, Mahaboobnagar. But this contention also was negatived on the ground that the executing court was the court of Subordinate Judge, Mahaboobnagar and it was that court that should issue notices to the respondents and there was sufficient compliance of the provisions under O. 21, R. 22, Civil P. C.

( 5 ) THE third objection raised was that the Subordinate Judges court, Mahaboobnagar had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the execution petition, as the subject-matter of the suit was valued at over several lakhs of rupees and that the subordinate Judges court , Mahaboobnagar, which had jurisdiction only upto Rs. 50,000. 00 could not execute the decree passed in the suit, even though the amount for which the decree is sought to be executed is admittedly below Rs. 50,000. 00. But this objection was overruled by the lower court, following the decision in Kedarnath v. Chajju Mal (AIR 1962 All 586) of the Allahabad High court, which had referred and following the rulings of Madras High court. The lower court did not follow the view taken by the Bombay High court in AIR 1940 Bom 276.

( 6 ) ANOTHER objection raised was that until the final decree is passed in the suit, the decree for costs passed by the appellate court in the appeal against the preliminary decree should be treated as preliminary one and that was not executable one. This objection also was overruled by the lower court on the ground that the decree for costs awarded by the High court in the appeal is a final decree and is executable and that it could not be treated as preliminary decree. He rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the judgment-debtors that the costs awarded in the preliminary decree stage, should be adjusted at the time of passing of the final d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document