1. The decree holder is in revision against the dismissal of E.P.No.1151/2010 as not maintainable in view of Section 39(4) of the amended CPC.

2. Heard.

3. The contextual facts are the petitioner decree holder was successful in obtaining compensation by judgment and award in MVC.No.7496/2007 on 05.02.2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore SCCH-11, Bangalore. Being entitled to receive Rs.1,80,000/- from the first respondent (Puttaswamaiah), filed execution No.1151/2010 in the Court of the Chief Judge, Small Causes, Bangalore to recover the amount. In the execution petition itself, they showed Puttaswamaiah, the judgment debtor to be the resident of Varadanahalli Village, Kailancha Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Ramanagaram District. The learned judge of the executing Court noticed that the judgment and award in M.V.C.No.7496/2007 was nodoubt passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) but the judgment debtor Puttaswamaiah (respondent) in MVC case was not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore. As in the execution petition itself, the judgment debtor was shown to be residing in Ramanagaram taluk, Ramanagaram District, it held that the execution filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bangalore was not maintainable in view of provision of Section 39(4) of the amended CPC, 1908, Consequently, the E.P was dismissed.

4. The petitioner’s counsel has assailed the order impugned on the following grounds:

i) The execution Court having noticed that the Judgment Debtor was not residing in its territorial jurisdiction, could not have dismissed the execution petition. It should have returned it for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction.

ii) The Court having noticed it has no9t jurisdiction, should have either permitted the decree holder to withdraw the same and present it before the Court having jurisdiction or it could have passed an order permissible under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

5. None of these grounds are tenable. The issue has to be examined referring to Section 39(4) (as inserted by Act 22/2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2002). Section 39 reads thus:

“Section 39: Transfer of decree

(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 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. (b) If such person has no 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.

(1) The Court which passed a decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction.

(2) 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.

(3) 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. Thus, there should be no entertainable doubt that by virtue of sub section 4, the Court which passed the decree has no jurisdiction to execute such a decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.

7. Sub section 1 of Section 39 postulates the Court which pa