ORDER :

DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

1. Petitioner being the decree holder in Ex. No. 2735/2015 is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the order dated 16.06.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D whereby the Court below has rejected not only his application in I.A. No. 3 filed under Section 46 of CPC seeking issuance of the precept but has closed the very execution proceeding itself.

2. First respondent is represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Kiran Kumar and notice to other respondents has been dispensed with vide order dated 10.08.2017 made by a Co-ordinate Judge of this Court.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Court below is not justified in closing the very execution proceedings and rejecting petitioner's application in I.A. No. 3 for issuance of precept since the execution proceedings are instituted before the very Court which has entered the decree in question, the subject property being situate outside its territorial jurisdiction, notwithstanding.

4. The Apex Court in Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. Abdul Samad and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 622 at para 11 has observed as under:

"11. Now turning to the provisions of Order XXI of the said Code, which deals with execution of decrees and orders. In case a Court desires that its own decree is to be executed by another Court, the manner for doing so is provided by Rule 6, which reads as under:

"Order XXI. Execution of Decrees and Orders xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

6. Procedure where Court desires that its own decree shall be executed by another Court. The Court sending a decree for execution shall send-

(a) a copy of the decree;

(b) a certificate setting forth that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by execution within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed, or, where the decree has been executed in part, the extent to which satisfaction has been obtained and what part of the decree remains unsatisfied; and

(c) a copy of any order for the execution of the decree, or, if no such order has been made, a certificate to that effect."

These observations support case of the petitioner substantially, since case of the petitioner strictly falls within the parameters of Order XXI, Rule 6 in all fours.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order and consequently both the execution petition & the application in I.A. No. 3 are restored for being processed on merit at the hands of the learned Judge of the Court below.

It hardly needs to be stated that it is eminently a fit case for issuance of precept inasmuch as the property which the petitioner seeks to proceed against is situate at Chennai, and away from the jurisdictional limits of the Court below.

Since the suit from which the decree has emanated was of the year 2009 and much water has flowed under the bridges since its disposal, learned Judge of the Court below is requested to accomplish the execution proceedings within an outer limit of one year and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

All contentions of the parties otherwise are kept open.