This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order in E.P.

No.116 of 2007 in O.S. No.58 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar District.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money and it was decreed for an amount of Rs.2,87,471/- with interest. The decree holder filed E.P. No.116 of 2007 in the same Court which passed the decree for realization of Rs.4,92,059/- towards the amount covered by the decree with interest and costs by way of attachment of the salary of the petitioner. The revision petitioner being J.Dr. in the said E.P. challenged the order on the ground that the E.P. is not maintainable as he is working in Adilabad District, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Karimnagar Court and the execution proceedings ought to have been taken only after the transfer of the decree in the local Court of Adilabad District, therefore, he requested to set aside the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in E.P. No.116 of 2007 in O.S. No.58 of 2002.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondent - decree-holder submitted that there is no need for transfer of the case to the District in which the J.Dr. is working for the purpose of attachment of the salary and the lower Court was right in ordering attachment of the salary, as the said Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the E.P. and to order attachment of the salary.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree has to be transferred to another Court of competent jurisdiction for execution of the decree, but clause (1) indicates that on the application of the decree-holder, the transfer has to be made. Under clause (2) the Court which passed the decree may on its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. Clause (1) indicates that the decree has to be sent to the Court which has jurisdiction within the local limits in which the J.Dr. voluntarily resides or carries on business, or the Court within the local jurisdiction of which the properties of the J.Dr. is situated, or if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree, or the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason the decree should be executed by the other Court.

5. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

"S. 39.(1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction,--

(a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(c) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, or

(d) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason, which it shall record in writing, that the decree should be executed by such other Court.

(2). The court which passed a decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. (3). For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if, at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, such Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such decree was passed. (4). Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the Court which passed a decree to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction."

6. Order XXI Rul