The main legal point established in the judgment is that the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction does not automatically transfer pending execution applications to District Courts, and the power to transfer a decree under sub-section (2) of Section 39, CPC can be exercised independently of the conditions specified in sub-section (1) of Section 39, CPC.

( 1 ) BY Notification No. L-17015/ 1/2002-Jus. dated 18th July 2003, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Original Side of Delhi High Court has been increased from rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 20 lakhs.

( 2 ) THE questions falling for consideration in this Execution Petition are :

(I) Whether as a result of the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction, the pending execution applications are liable to be transferred to the District Courts or not? (ii) In case, the answer to the first question is in the negative, whether the Court may suo motu In the exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 39, CPC can send the petition for execution to a subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction independently of the existence of circumstances specified in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 39, CPC?

( 3 ) THE suit had been filed for recovery of rs. 14,38,480/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs thirty eight thousand and four hundred eighty only) against the defendants. Plaintiff had valued the suit for jurisdictional purposes at the above value and paid Rs. 16,398/- as Court-fee. The suit had been decreed for a sum of Rs. 14,38,480/- with defendant No. 2 having joint and several liability for payment of Rs. 10,74,480/ -. Pendente lite and future interest at 12% was also granted. The present Execution Petition seeking execution of the above decree dated 26-2-2003, was filed on 8-8-2002.

( 4 ) NOTICES were issued to the Judgment debtors. Judgment Debtor No. 2-Shri R. C. Jain, is stated to have expired on 27-11-2001. Son of the deceased judgment-debtor no. 2 Shri Raj Kr. Jain moved EA. No. 502/ 2002 averring that the Decree Holder knew about the demise of late Shri R, C. Jain but had not impleaded the legal representatives. It was claimed that Shri R. C. Jain had died leaving behind liabilities of more than Rs. 6 crores and the applicant as well as the other legal representatives did not derive any benefit from the estate.

( 5 ) NOTICE of the application was issued to the decree holder. Further the Court vide orders dated 24th March, 2003. and 16th july, 2003, directed Shri Raj Kr. Jain, who is stated to be the Managing Director of judgment debtor No. 1 to file affidavit giving particulars of the assets of judgment debtor No. 1. Upon filing of the said affidavit, the Court directed Mr. Raj Kr. Jain to file affidavit with respect to the assets of his mother as well. It. is at this juncture, that the question of transfer of the Execution Petition has arisen.

( 6 ) THE net position which emerges is that the Suit had been tried in and decreed,by the High Court. Objection to the Execution application has been filed by the legal representatives of judgment debtor No. 2, who expired on 27-11-2001, i. e. even before passing of the decree. Legal representatives have claimed in the objection application that the deceased-judgment debtor No. 2, has left behind liabilities, which far exceed the estate.

( 7 ) COMING to the question of transfer of execution application on revision of pecuniary jurisdiction or the Court ceasing to have jurisdiction, reference is invited to a decision of Division Bench of this Court in gulab Chand Sharma v. Saraswati Devi reported at ILR (1975) 1 Delhi 345 : (AIR 1975 delhi 210 ). The Division Bench considered the, provisions of Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For facility of reference, provisions of Sections 37, 38 and 39, CPC, are reproduced hereunder : 37. Definition of Court which passed a decree. The expression "court which passed a decree", or words to the effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include,

(A) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and (b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the a