SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Cal) 285

High Court Of Calcutta
D. K. SEN, G. N. RAY
SHEW KUMAR NOPANY - Appellant
Versus
GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. - Respondent
Appeal Nil  Of  1984
Decided On : 07/12/1985

The Court passing the decree retains jurisdiction to examine the judgment-debtor, even after the transmission of the decree to another Court for execution.

Headnote:

EXECUTION OF DECREE - STAY OF EXECUTION - JURISDICTION - TRANSMISSION OF DECREE TO ANOTHER COURT - APPLICATION FOR EXAMINATION OF JUDGMENT-DEBTOR - COURT PASSING THE DECREE RETAINS JURISDICTION TO EXAMINE JUDGMENT-DEBTOR - ORIGINAL SIDE RULES, CHAPTER XVII, RULE 4 - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, ORDER XXI, RULES 26(1) AND 41(1).

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendants in Suit No. 775 of 1980. The decree was transmitted to the District Court, Alipore for execution against the property of one of the judgment-debtors. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a Tabular Statement in the High Court praying for examination of the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the application for examination of the judgment-debtors was not an application for execution but an application in aid of execution. The Court further held that the Court passing the decree retains the overall jurisdiction in the matter of the execution of the decree, even after its transmission to another Court for execution.

Issues: Whether the Court passing the decree retains any seisin over or jurisdiction in respect of the decree after its transmission for execution to another Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an application for examination of a judgment-debtor is not an application for execution and that the Court which passed the decree retains the overall jurisdiction in the matter of the execution of the decree. The Court further held that the transmission of the decree to another Court for execution does not render the provisions of Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure nugatory.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the first Court.

DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J.

( 1 ) A decree was passed in Suit No. 775 of 1980 in favour of the plaintiff, Grindlays Bank Ltd. on the 2nd March, 1981 for Rs. 36,02,511. 67 P. with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the 1st August, 1980 till realisation against the defendants Ramacast Limited, a limited company, Shew Prosad Nopany and Bimal Kumar Nopany, two Directors of the company, in their capacity as guarantors.

( 2 ) ON an application of the plaintiff, the said decree was transmitted to the District Court, Alipore for execution in respect of a property belonging to Shew Prosad Nopany, the defendant No. 2 situated within the jurisdiction of the said District Court. The said execution proceeding is still pending. On the 28th February, 1984 the plaintiff after the transmission of the said decree filed another Tabular Statement in this Court praying for examination of Shew Prosad Nopany and Bimal Kumar Nopany two of the judgment-debtors in this Court under Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 3 ) THE said application was opposed and was ultimately disposed of by a judgment and order dated the 12th September, 1984. The prayer of the plaintiff for examination of the judgment-debtors was allowed. The present appeal is against the said judgment and order.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellants, the two judgment-debtors, is, inter alia, that under Chapter XVII, Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, execution of a decree is stayed automatically when the decree is sent to another Court for execution unless there is a direction to the contrary by the Master or the Registrar or the Judge. It is contended that the transmission of the decree in the case before us was unconditional and, therefore, further execution cannot be proceeded with in this Court. It is contended further that the Tabular Statement for examination of the judgment-debtors has been filed under the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure which lay down various modes of execution and matters relating to execution. The application for examination of judgment-debtors would come under the mischief of Rule 4 of Chapter XVII of the Original Side Rules and no order could have been passed on such an application.

( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff-Bank is, inter alia, that an application for examination of the judgment-debtors is not an application for execution but an application in aid of execution. The object is to ascertain from the judgment-debtors particulars of their properties and assets on which execution can thereafter be levied. This Court having passed the decree, it is contended, retains seisin over the decree and that the stay contemplated by Rule 4 of Chapter XVII of the Original Side Rules can be varied or vacated at any time by this Court.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties drew our attention to the relevant statutory provisions and cited the following decisions which are noted and considered hereinafter : original Side Rules"rule 4 of Chapter XVII - Where a decree is sent to another Court for execution, stay of execution will be entered in the proceedings in this Court, unless the Judge, Registrar or Master shall, on such terms as he thinks fit, otherwise direct. "code of Civil Procedure"order XXI Rule 26 (1) - The Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by such Court of first instance or Appellate Court if execution had been made by such Court of first instance or Appellate Court, if execution had been issued thereby, or if application for execution had been made thereto. ""order XXI Rule 41.- (1) Where a decree









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top