PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia, J.
Fagu Ram Mahadeo Ram
Versus
Pannalal
A.F.A.O. No. 415 of 1960 ;
Decided On : OCTOBER 05, 1961
Transfer of Decree - Small Cause Court - Interpretation of Statutory Provisions
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtor appealed against the transfer of the decree by the small cause court at Calcutta for execution to the court of the 2nd Munsif at Buxar, arguing that it was not in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 21 read with Sec. 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below rejected the contention, holding that the transfer was in accordance with the law. The court analyzed Sec. 40 of the Code and Order 21 Rule 5, along with Sec. 31 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and concluded that the transfer was legal and within jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer of the decree by the small cause court at Calcutta for execution to the court of the 2nd Munsif at Buxar was in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the statutory provisions of Sec. 40 of the Code, Order 21 Rule 5, and Sec. 31 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. It held that the specific provision in Sec. 31 of the Act prevailed over the general provision in Order 21 Rule 5, allowing the transfer of the decree directly to the Munsif's court at Buxar.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the transfer of the decree was deemed legal and within jurisdiction.
N.L.Untwalia, J.
1. This is a miscellaneous second appeal by the judgment-debtor and the only point pressed on its behalf is that the transfer of the decree by the small cause court at Calcutta for execution to the court of the 2nd Munsif at Buxar is not in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 21 read with Sec. 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. In this particular case, it seems the small cause court at Calcutta, which had passed the decree, sent it directly for execution to the court of 2nd Munsif at Buxar and did not send it through the district Judge of Shahabud, as required by Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code. Both the courts below have rejected this contention put forward on behalf or the appellant, and, in my opinion, they are right in the view of law taken by them.
2. Section 8 of the Code provides-
"Save as provided in Sections 24, 38 to 41, 75, Clauses (a), (5) and (c), 76, 77 and 155 to 158 and by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 , the provisions in the body of this Code shall not extend to any suit or proceeding in any Court of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay:"
Section 40 is one of the sections which is applicable to a proceeding in a court of small causes established in the town of Calcutta. I shall now read Sec. 40 of the Code-
"Where a decree is sent for execution in an other State, it shall be sent to such Court and executed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State."
According to the provisions of this section, therefore, generally speaking the decree is to be sent for execution in another State and executed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State. Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code is a provision which is a prescribed rule in force in this State. The said rule reads thus:-
-
"Where the Court to which a decree is to be sent for execution is situate within the same district as the Court which passed such decree, such Court shall send the same directly to the former Court. But, where the Court to which the decree is to be sent for execution is situate is in a different district, the Court which passed it shall send it to the District Court of the district in which the decree is to be executed."
It is, therefore, clear that ordinarily and generally the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 for mode of transfer of a decree has got to be followed when a decree is sent by a court situate in another State to the State of Bihar. That being so, the decree ought to have been sent through the District Judge of Shahabad. But it is to be noticed that Section 8 of the Code also makes reference, for governing the proceedings in the court of small cau.ses established in the presidency towns, to the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and Sec.31 of that Act is to the following effect:-
-
"If the judgment-debtor under any decree or the Small Cause Court has not, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, moveable property sufficient to satisfy the decree, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, send the decree for execution- (a) in the case of execution against immoveable property situate within such local limits--to the Madras City Civil Court or the High Court of Judicature at Fort William or Bombay, as the case may be:
(b) in all other cases--to any Civil Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such judgment-debtor, or any moveable or immoveable property of such judgment-debtor, may be found..
The procedure prescribed by the Code ot Civil Procedure for the execution of decrees by Courty other than these which made them shall be the procedure followed in such cases." Therein it is to be noticed that under Clause (b) the presidency small cause court has got jurisdiction and power to transfer to any civil court the decree for execution and there the procedure prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure for the execution of decrees shall be the procedure which wo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.