An application for transfer of a decree is not an application for execution within the meaning of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) C. M. A. No. 256 of 1951: The decree-holder has preferred this Civil miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the District Court of East Godavari at Rajahmundry, rejecting an unregistered execution petition filed by him in that Court. The facts which have given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. In S. A. No. 1603 of 1931 on the file of the High Court of Madras, which arose out of the decree in A. S. No. 104 of 1929 on the file of the District court of East. Godavari, at Rajahmundry, which itself was filed against the decree of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Rajahmundry, in O. S. No. 78 of 1924, the High Court passed a decree in favour of the present appellant and others on the 18th of February 1938. On the 9th of January 1950, the appellant applied in E. A, No. 81 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate judge s Court, Rajahmudry, for transfer of that decree to the District Court, rajahmundry, for execution. While that application for transfer was pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge s court, Rajahmundry, the appellant presented an execution petition on the 20th of February 1950 in the district Court, Rajahmundry, praying inter alia for execution of the decree. In the note added at the end of the execution petition, the appellant stated that the decree was barred by the twelve years limitation by the 18th and 19th of February, 1950, but as the 18th and 19th were public holidays, the petition was filed on the 20th of February, the next working day, and therefore, it was not barred by limitation. In column 6 of the execution petition the fact that E. A. No. 81 of 1950 was filed on 9-1-1950 in the Subordinate judge s Court, Rajahmundry, and that the same is pending, was noted. On the 1st of August 1950, the learned District Judge made an order on the unregistered execution petition rejecting the same. The order mentions that it was stated by the Counsel for the. decree-holder that the court, which passed the decree, had not yet ordered the decree to be transmitted for execution by the District Court and that therefore the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition. This order is the subjectmatter of the above appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondents not having been represented, Srimathi K. Amareswari appeared as amicus curiae and assisted the court. E. A. No. 81 of 1950, which was filed before the Subordinate Judge s court for transmission of the decree for execution by the District Court was ordered on the 24th of August 1950. Here, it may be stated that the application filed before the Subordinate Judge s Court, Rajahmundry, did not contain any prayer for execution of the decree. Counsel for the appellant admitted before us that it was so and that it only contained a prayer for transmission of the decree to the District Court for execution. The period of limitation under Sec. 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure within which a decree may be executed is twelve years from the date of the decree sought to be executed. An application to transfer a decree to another court for execution is not an application for execution within the meaning of Sec. 48. Such an application, though made within 12 years from the date of the decree, will not entitle the decree-holder to execute the decree if the application for execution to the court to which the decree is transferred, is made after the expiration of twelve years. In the present case, the Subordinate judge s court, Rajahmundry, made an order transmitting the decree to the District Court, Rajahmundry, as prayed for, on the 24th of August 1950, which is clearly beyond twelve years from the 18th of February 1938, when the High Court of Madras passed the decree. Mr. Poornayya, Counsel appearing for the appellant, contended before us that O. S. No. 78 of 1924 was originally filed in the District Court and it was transferred to the Subordinate Judge s Court, Rajahmundry, only for purposes of trial and decision, and that being so, the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document