The executing Court must have territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter against which execution is sought, and its jurisdiction is restricted by its territorial limitations.

JUDGMENT

Suhrawardy, J. - One Sasi Bhusan Bhattacharya living within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Bolpur in the District of Birhbtum insured his life with the defendant company for Rs. 2,000 by Policy-No. 7218. He borrowed some money from the plaintiff who obtained a decree for the amount against his legal representatives after his death, and put it in execution in the Court of the Munsif at Bolpur who had passed the decree. In execution of the decree, the policy or more correctly speaking the amount due under the policy was first attached by the Munsif of Bolpur under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P. C, and subsequently sold by him and purchased by the plaintiff. Not having obtained satisfaction from the defendant, the plaintiff brought the present suit to recover the amount to which he said he was entitled by his purchase of the debt as aforesaid. The plea of the defendant company was that the Bolpur Court had no jurisdiction to sell the debt due under the policy and, so the purchase by the plaintiff did not give him the right to recover it from the defendant. The defendant further objected that the suit did not lie in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhum. As to the second ground of objection, the trial Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the learned District Judge on appeal did not consider this point, as in his opinion the plaintiff's suit failed on other grounds. The defendant however desires to support the decree of the Court below on this ground also.

2. On the first objection of the defendant both the Courts have held that the Bolpur Court had no jurisdiction to attach the debt due from the defendant company and had consequently no jurisdiction to sell it and that by his purchase at such sale the plaintiff did not acquire any right to recover the money. The learned District Judge after discussing the law and facts of the case has recorded his findings in these words:

I fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge and hold that the order of attachment was ab initio void and the alleged sale subsequently held gave no right, title or interest to the decree-holder the plaintiff in this case.

3. In this view of the matter both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff has appealed.

4. It has not been seriously pressed that the attachment under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P. C, of the debt was a valid attachment. But it has been argued that any irregularity in or even absence of attachment does not vitiate the sale and in support of this contention several cases have been cited of which the latest is Nareshchandra Mitra Vs. Moll Ataul Huq, AIR 1931 Cal 35 q in which all the earlier cases have been considered. As a pure question of law there can be no dispute that the invalidity or absence of attachment would not invalidate the sale, inasmuch as the order of attachment is only a prohibitory order issued on the judgment-debtor and the public in order to protect the interest of the execution creditor. But this view of the law is of no help to the plaintiff in the present case. In ail those cases the Court had jurisdiction to sell the property. The executing Court, like the Court entertaining a suit (except in case of breach of contract), must have territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter against which execution is sought. Where it has no such jurisdiction the provisions of Section 89, Civil P. C, must apply, that is to say, the executing Court should send the application for execution to any other Court which has such territorial jurisdiction. The word may" used in Section 39 does not mean that it is in the discretion of the Court which passed the decree either to execute the decree itself or to send the application |for execution to another Court where the property against which execution is sought is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree. [The discretion given there indicates that the Court should s