The provisions of Rule 5 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code are directory and not mandatory. The transferee court has the competence to execute a decree made over to it by the court that passed the decree, though such transmission is not made in conformity with the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 21.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is by a judgment-debtor in a small cause suit, whose objection to the proceeding was overruled by the Court below. The decree was made by the Judge, Small Cause Court at Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. The Judgment-debtor is a resident of Vijayawada. As the decree was not satisfied, the decree-holder was granted a certificate on non-satisfaction and he made the present application to the subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, for the execution of the decree. the maintainability of the petition was called in question by the judgment-debtor, who has come up in revision, because the lower court rejected his contention.

( 2 ) A question of limitation was raised in the lower court, but no argument on that aspect was addressed to me.

( 3 ) THE only contention urged by Mr. Surya Rao for the petitioner is that under the provisions of Rule 5 of O. 21, Civil Procedure Code, a mode of transfer of a decree for execution is prescribed and that the transmission of the decree in the instant case was not made in conformity with requirements of that rule. Where the Court to which a decree is to be sent for execution is not situate in the same District as the Court that passed the decree, the rule makes it obligatory to send the decree to the District Court of the district in which the decree is to be executed. In the instant case, the Court at Meerut acted pursuant to Rule 6 of Order 21 to which a local amendment was made by the Allahabad High Court. Under Rule 6 as amended by that High Court, copies of the decree and certificate of non-satisfaction could at the request of the decree-holder be taken to the Court to which they were to be sent.

( 4 ) THE decree-holder was given the copy of the decree and certificate of non-satisfaction and he presented the Execution petition not to the District, Court Krishna, but to the Subordinate Judge.

( 5 ) THE short question is, whether the execution petition was duly presented and the Court has jurisdiction to levy execution, on foot of the petition thus presented.

( 6 ) THE argument is that Rule 5 is mandatory in its requirement and that the decree shall be sent to the District Court. The transmission of the decree was not done as ordained by the rule. The subordinate Judge cannot entertain the petition because the foundation for the jurisdiction of the transferee court is a valid act of transfer and that is lacking.

( 7 ) COUNCEL relied on some decisions which may now be examined in the chronolgical order.

( 8 ) THE dicta of Ramesam, J. , in Subramanya Ayyar v. Swaminatha Chettiar, AIR 1928 Mad, 746 found at p. 751 were strongly relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioner. That was a case where a decree was made on foot of a mortgage by the Subordinate Judge, Nagapatnam. The territorial jurisdiction over the area in which the hupotheca or part thereof was situate was made over to another Court. There was no order of transfer made by the Court that passed the decree. An application was made to the Subordinate Judge, Tanager, for execution and he passed an order, the effect of which came to be considered at a later stage and the argument was that the earlier order was conclusive in its effect. In the context, Ramesam. J. , observed: ". . . . . . . . . . but, where, as in this case the transfer cannot be made directly to the second Court, and it should only be made first to the District Court of Tanjore and the District Court may either execute the decree it self or may send it to the Sub-Court (Vide Order 21, Rule 5), the irregularity cannot be overlooked as a mere irregularity. It seems to me that the irregularity amounts to a want of jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . " The dicta cited above are to be considered in the light of the question formulated at page 747. The point raised before the Division Bench was stated to be "whether execution of a decree of Nagapatnam Sub-Court cannot be ordered by the Sub-Court, Tanjore, on a petition filed before it and that it can be only