Interpretation of jurisdictional provisions under the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act and the Civil Procedure Code for execution of decree.

JUDGMENT

Cuming, J. - The facts of the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: the respondent has obtained a certain award in an apportionment case from the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal. The appellant in this case raised objections in the apportionment case and the President of the Tribunal decided against him. The appellant appealed to this Court and this Court dismissed the appeal and gave costs to the respondent. The respondent then applied to execute his decree for costs to the Calcutta Small Cause Court. As the appellant had no property within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Small Cause Court the execution there was infructuous and it was transferred by the Small Cause Court to the Court of the First Munsif, Alipur, for disposal. Various objections were raised in that Court to the execution of the decree. But they were overruled and the learned Munsif proceeded to execute the decree as prayed for by the respondent. The appellant then appealed to the District Court and the District Court at first decided' the appeal in his favour, but on review set aside his order allowing the appeal and upheld the order of the Munsif. Against this order the present appeal has been preferred.

2. The respondent objects that no appeal lies to this Court. It is unnecessary to decide whether or not any appeal lies, because after hearing the appeal we are of opinion that the appeal has no merit in it.

3. The learned Vakil for the appellant has put forward two grounds. He first of all contends that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution, because the value of the suit, as he describes it, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. Now this decree for costs was sent to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court of Calcutta u/s 5 of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act. Section 5 provides as follows: "The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta shall, on application, execute any order passed by the Court on appeal as if it was a decree made by himself." The Court referred to in this section is the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. The section, as will be clear from a perusal of it does not in any way limit the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court of Calcutta. The words used are " execute any order passed by the Court on appeal." It is quite clear from these words that his jurisdiction to execute any order of the Court is not limited to an order which may come within his pecuniary jurisdiction. The contention that the value of the claim in appeal was Rs. 15,000 and was beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction thus is decided against the appellant.

4. The next point urged by the learned Vakil is that the First Munsif of Alipur to whose Court the decree was transferred had no jurisdiction to execute the decree, his contention being that the value of the suit as he described it was Rs. 15,000 and that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif of Alipur does not extend beyond Rs. 2,000 and in support of his contention he relies on Section 6 of the C.P.C. which provides as follows: "Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction." He contends that the execution proceedings are to be regarded as the continuation of the suit, and hence as the subject-matter of the suit was Rs. 15,030 the Munsif, First Court at Alipur had no jurisdiction to execute the decree for costs. The simple answer to this contention is that the proceedings before the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal was not a suit. Therefore this contention equally fails.

5. The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee five gold mohurs.

B.B. Ghose, J.

6. I agree.