The transferee Court can execute a decree transferred from a Small Causes Court as if it had been passed by itself, and the limitations on the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court do not affect the decree when transferred to a non-Small Causes Court for execution.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 21st September, 1982 passed by the learned XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in execution Case No. 191 of 1982. The learned Single Judge has, by the order dated 12th October, 1988, referred the case to a Division Bench on the ground that a decision of this Court in Meganahalli Basappa v Doddamani Basavarajappa, ILR 1985 (3) Kar. 2420 has not fully considered the decision of the Supreme Court in mahadeo Prasad Singh v Ram Lochan, AIR 1981 SC 416 and has not taken into consideration the cumulative effect of Sections 7, 39 (3) and 42, Order 21, Rule 82 and also Order 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) BEFORE we consider the contentions urged by Sri Shankar, learned counsel forthe petitioner, we notice the undisputed facts of the case: the respondent obtained a money decree in SC No. 7570 of 1980 (old No. 810 of 1979) from the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City on 25th August, 1981 for a sum of Rs. 8,202. 50 with interest on Rs. 7. 000/- at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization and the costs of Rs. 1,029. 75. The suit was filed on 26lh March, 1979. The decree-holder filed an Execution Case No. 151 of 1981 for execution of the decree. In the execution petition itself, the decree holder prayed for attachment and sale of moveable and immoveable properties and also prayed for transfer of the decree for execution to the City Civil Court, Bangalore. The Small Causes Court by the order dated 11-3-1982 directed transfer of the decree for execution to the City civil Court, Bangalore City. On transfer, the City Civil Court numbered the case as execution Case No. 191 of 1982. Before the transferee Court, objections were filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, contending that the immoveable properties cannot at all be attached and sold because the decree under execution is passed by the Small Causes Court; that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to execute a decree against immoveable property; therefore the transferee court has to exercise the jurisdiction with this inhibition, because the decree is that of a Small Causes Court; hence the relief sought for by the decree holder for directing attachment and sale of the immoveable properties under Order 21, Rules 54 and 82 of the CPC cannot at all be granted. The transferee Court has overruled the objections. It has held that it is open to the transferee Court, which is not a Small Causes Court, to proceed against the immovcable properties, because once the decree of a Small Causes Court is transferred for execution the transferee Court can proceed to execute the decree as if il had been passed by itself. Objection was also raised to the effect that the transferee court is not competent to try the suit in (the light of (fie provisions contained in section 39 of the CPC. In this regard, the transferee Court has held thus: "what the words 'competent jurisdiction' in Section 39 mean the Court which is competent to execute the decree and not the Court which could have been competent to entertain the suit or take cognizance of the suit. " The words 'competent jurisdiction' only mean competence to entertain the execution petition and nothing more. Therefore reading of Sections 39 and 42 of CPC will clearly show that a Court to which the decree is transferred for execution shall have all those powers as if the decree is passed by itself. Hence, if this Court has jurisdiction to attach immoveable property, the decree of the Small Causes Court transferred to this Court for execution can be executed by such a mode and this Court will have jurisdiction to grant such a relief. " accordingly, the transferee Court has rejected the contentions and directed the execution to proceed further and has further directed for filing a verified statement and encumbrance certificate.

( 3 ) SRI Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pu