Simultaneous execution of a decree in more courts than one is permissible, although the Court transferring the decree may in its discretion refuse such transfers as would avail the decree holder concurrent executions before more courts than one.

( 1 ) THIS order disposes of several applications filed by the decree holder and judgment debtors during execution proceedings.

( 2 ) THE High Court of Madras in exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction passed a money decree dated 28th June, 1991 based on a compromise. The three judgment debtors who are respectively Company, its Managing Director and Director were directed to pay the decretal amount in instalments. The decree having not been honoured, the decree holder took out execution. By transfer certificate dated 24. 2. 92 the decree accompanied by a certificate of non-satisfaction at Madras has been transferred for execution to Delhi High Court (Original Side ). Yet again the decree accompanied by transfer certificate and certificate of non-satisfaction at Madras has been transferred to Panjab High Court for execution on its Original Side

( 3 ) EA 282/94 and 283/94 have been filed by the Company (Judgment Debtor No. 1) raising objections to the maintainability of the execution at Delhi. The principal objection raised is that simultaneous execution of decree at Chandigarh and Delhi is an abuse of the process of Court and therefore the execution application at Delhi deserves to be dismissed or adjourned sine die unless and until the decree holder may withdraw the execution pending at Chandigarh. It is also submitted by reference to Section 41 of the Civil Procedure Code that so Iong as a certificate of non-satisfaction has not been issued and sent by one transfaree court to the original executing court, a fresh application for execution seeking its transfer to another court would not lie. Heavy reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the judgment debtor on Rulia Ram and Anr. VS. Diwan Chand and Ors. , AIR 1934 Lahore 728; Jatendrakumar Das VS. Mahendrachandra Banikya, AIR 1933 Calcutta 906 and Jaunendra Nath Ghosh VS. Kumar Jogendra Narain Sinha, AIR 1923 Patna 384.

( 4 ) I see no merit in the objection raised. No provision of Civil Procedure Code has been brought to my notice which may expressly prohibit simultaneous execution of decree before two Courts. Section 38 provides for execution of a decree either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. The provision is permissive in nature. Section 39 of the Civil Procedure Code and Rules 4 to 9 of Order 21 contemplate transfer of a decree for execution to another court and the execution by transferee court.

( 5 ) THE law does not prevent simultaneous execution of decree in more courts than one, although the Court transferring the decree may in its discretion refuse such transfers as would avail the decree holder concurrent executions before more courts than one. The judgment debtor should not be put to hardship nor to opperssion. The fact remains that simultaneous transfer of decree for execution to two courts and simultaneous execution proceedings are neither illegal nor without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) I am fortified in taking the above view by the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Lata Agarawal VS. Lakshman Prasad Gupta and Ors. , (AIR 1970 SC 1525) :-

"simultaneous execution proceeding in more places than one is possible but the power is used sparingly in exceptional cases by imposing proper terms so that hardship does not occur to judgment-debtors by allowing several attachments to be proceeded with at the same time. "

( 7 ) SIMULTANEOUS execution is permissible, is the view taken by Full Bench of Patna High Court in Radheshyam and Ors. VS. Devendra, AIR 1952 Patna 213, Full Bench of Mysore High Court in S. Sundara Rao VS. Appiah Naidu and Anr. AIR 1954 Mysore 154, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Bhagwandas VS. Gomtibai, AIR 1962 All 619 (overruling its earlier view to the Contrary), Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gyanchand VS. Banwarilal (1964 MPLJ SN 180), Madras High Court in Athivarapu Venkatarami Reddi VS. Kotamreddi Rami Reddi (AIR 1950 Mad 582 ). In the earliest and leading authority of Sarod