High Court Of Delhi
MANGANESE ORE INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR - Appellant
Versus
MANGILAL RUNGTA, CALCUTTA - Respondent
Execution 62 of 1979
Decided On : 08/27/1980
EXECUTION OF DECREE - JURISDICTION OF TRANSFEREE COURT - CONDITIONS - COURT TO WHICH DECREE IS SENT FOR EXECUTION MUST HAVE JURISDICTION TO TRY SUIT IN WHICH DECREE WAS PASSED - TRANSFEROR COURT TO CERTIFY FACT OF UNSATISFIED EXECUTION TO TRANSFEREE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Decree-holder obtained a decree for recovery of money with interest and future interest at 6% p.a. till realization and costs of the suit against the Judgment-Debtor. The decree-holder took out execution in the transferee Court with the prayer that the decretal amount be realized by attachment of debts payable by the Garnishee to the Judgment-Debtor. The Judgment-Debtor and the Garnishee denied any debt or contract between them.
Finding of the Court:
The transferee Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and execute the decree as it lacks both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed.
Issues: Whether the transferee Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree when it lacks both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. 2. Section 39 of the CPC lays down the conditions under which a decree can be transferred for execution to another Court. 3. A transferee Court must have both pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to execute the decree before it embarks upon doing so. 4. Rule 5 of Order 21 of the CPC imposes a duty on the transferee Court to transfer the decree to the Court having jurisdiction to execute the decree if it has no jurisdiction to execute the same itself. 5. The rule of territorial jurisdiction which governs suits also governs execution of decrees, with certain exceptions.
Final Decision: The execution application is dismissed as unsatisfied and this fact be certified to the transferor Court. The decree-holder shall also bear the costs of the judgment-debtor and the Garnishee.
( 1 ) THE petitioner-decree- hoder M/s. Manganese Ore (India) Limited obtained a decree for recovery of Rs. 3,84,375. 00 (the principal amount) with interest at 6% p. a. with effect from 11th April, 1969 to 20th June, 1979 amounting to Rs. 2,35,111. 00 and future interest at 6 % p. a. till realisation and costs of the suit against the Judgment- Debtor, M/s. Mangilal Rungta from the Court of Joint Civil Judge (S. D. Nagpur) on 21st September, 1978. On the strength of a Transfer Certificate issued by the said Court, the petitioner took out execution in this Court with the prayer that the decretal amount be realised by attachment of debts payable by the Garnishee, Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi, to the Judgment-Debtor and ordering them to pay into this. Court the amount necessary to satisfy fully the aforesaid decree. Accordingly, notice under Order 21, Rule 46-A of the Civil P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was issued to the Garnishee as well as the Judgment- Debtor. The Judgment-Debtor has filed an affidavit sworn by Shri Satya Narayan Rungta, a partner of the J. D. firm to the effect that the latter did not sell any manganese ore or iron ore to the Steel Authority of India Limited, New Delhi and that no amount is due from or payable by the said Authority to the J. D. firm on account of any alleged sale of manganese ore or iron ore. He has further denied that there was any running contract or account between the J. D. firm and the said Garnishee for the purchase of manganese-ore or iron-ore. Similarly, counsel for the Garnishee (Steel Authority of India Limited) has made a statement that there was no contract between the J. D. firm and the said Authority for supply of manganese-ore or iron-ore and that no amount whatsoever is due from them to the J. D. firm on any account.
( 2 ) IN view of this clear stand taken by the Garnishee as well as the Judgment-Debtor firm, the learned counsel for the D. H. has frankly stated that no further action is called for and the Garnishee be discharged. However, he has prayed that the Judgment-debtor be summoned under Order 21, Rule 41 of the Code for making a statement disclosing their assets.
( 3 ) THUS, the short question for determination is whether this Court being a transferee Court has jurisdiction to go ahead with the execution. proceedings or not.
( 4 ) SECTION 38 of the Code provides that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. Section 39 lays down the conditions under which a decree can be so sent. It runs as follows`
" (1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decreeholder, send it for execution to another Court (of competent jurisdiction), (a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or (b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or (c) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, or. (d) if the Court which passed the decree. considers for any other reason, which it shall record in writing, that the decree should be executed by such other Court. (2) The Court which passed a decree ifiay of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. (3) For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction it, at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, such Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such decree was passed. "
( 5 ) ON a plain reading of this section it is manifestly clear that cls. (a),
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.