A court to which a decree is transferred for execution has jurisdiction to execute the decree only if the provisions of Order 21, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure are complied with.

Dayal, J.

1. This appeal is by one of several judgment-debtors

2. The facts material for the decision of this case are these :

Nawab Mehdi Begam and others brought Rent Suit No. 13 of 1937 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, as against the judgment-debtors for Patni rent etc. On the 30th. January, 1939, the said suit was decreed with costs. The decree-holders filed execution Cases Nos. 101 of 1941 and 16 of 1946 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, but these were dismissed. In 1951, the decree-holders applied in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Purnea, for a certificate to be sent to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Patna for execution of the decree in the above suit.

On the 22nd January. 1951, the Subordinate Judge of Purnea ordered that a copy of the order with a copy of the decree and a certificate of non-satisfaction be sent to the District Judge, Patna. On the 29th January, 1955, the decree-holders filed Execution Case No, 8 of 1951 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, for satisfaction of the decree by attachment and sale of the Milkiat properties and houses of the judgment-debtors. On the 18th December, 1951, the appellant filed an objection petition before the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Patna, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case, No. 102 of 1951.

3. Paragraph 3 of the petition reads as follows :

"That the decree under execution was not transferred to this Court for execution and the Court had no Jurisdiction to entertain execution petition and it is liable to be dismissed."

Again, on the 5th April, 1952, the appellant filed an objection petition, the relevant paragraphs of which read as follows:

1. That it will appear from the records of the above-mentioned execution cases that the decrees under execution were transferred to the District Judge of Patna for execution from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purnea but the decree-holders did not file execution petitions in the Court of the District Judge of Patna.

2. That the decree-holders have filed their execution petitions in the above execution cases in this Court to whom decrees were not transferred either by the Sub-Judge of Purnea or by the District Judge of Patna and as such this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The petitioner has taken this as one of his objections amongst others in the above miscellaneous cases

3. That from the above it is clear that the execution proceedings have not been started in the District Judges Court of Patna where decrees were transferred for execution

* * * *

5. That under the circumstances the execution petitions are liable to be dismissed simply on this very ground according to the provisions of law.....

6. That it is necessary that before looking to the ether objections raised.....this petition be heard and considered.

* * * *"

The learned Subordinate Judge, First Court. Patna, by his order dated the 22nd January, 1953, overruled the objection that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the execution case.

4 Being thus aggrieved, the objector-judgment-debtor has filed this appeal.

5. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, appearing for the appellant, has contended that, in this case, there was a clear breach of the statutory provisions contained in Sec.38 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sec.38 provides :

"A decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which It is sent for execution."

Mr. Sinha, therefore, contended that either the Subordinate Judge. Purnea who passed the decree or the District Judge, Patna, to whom it was sent for execution had the jurisdiction to execute the decree. Execution by the Subordinate Judge. First Court. Patna was clearly without jurisdic-tion. Mr. Sinha further contended that the Subordinate Judge. First Court, Patna could execute the decree if the provisions of Order 21. Rule 8. Code of Civil Procedure, had been complied with. Order 21, Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, provides as follows :

"The Court to w