( 1 ) A very strictly technical argument is advanced in this petition allegedly pertaining to the jurisdiction of an Executing Court and thus bringing the petition under the scope of sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) so as to request this Court to exercise the power under that section.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff who is opponent herein filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana for recovery of some amount which was more than Rs. 15 704 After the bifurcation of the Mehsana District and Gandhinagar District jurisdiction of village Randheja went to the Narol Court (Ahmedabad Rural) and therefore that suit was transferred to that Court and was numbered as Special Civil Suit NO. 34 of 1978. This suit was decreed by the Narol Court. At the request of the decree-holder the Narol Court transferred the decree to the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Kadi District Mehsana as the defendant resided at Kundal Taluka Kadi and thereafter the Kadi Court issued a notice for attachment. When this notice was received by an application Ex. 18 the petitioner contested the notice and challenged the jurisdiction of that Court to execute the decree. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application holding that the objection on the ground of the Gujarat Judicial Courts Laws (Amendment) Act 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not tenable. I am referring to only this ground because various grounds were raised in the objection application and the learned Civil Judge Kadi by his order dated 1 over-ruled those objections and ordered the execution to proceed according to law. I am considering the observations of the learned Civil Judge Kadi so far as the main dispute before me is concerned

( 3 ) IT is the submission of Mr. Viresh C. Desai learned Advocates for the petitioner that the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Kadi has committed an error in merely brushing aside the objections without considering the provisions of the Act. According to Mr. Desai the Act came into force on 1-1-1980. By this Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge Junior Division was raised from Rs. 10 0 to Rs. 20 0 There is no dispute on behalf of the opponent so far as these two positions are concerned viz. that the Act came into force on 1-1-1980 and the pecuniary jurisdiction was raised from that day.

( 4 ) NOW according to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 11 of the Act all applications for the execution or enforcement of a decree or order of a specified Court passed immediately before the day on which the Act comes into force and all other applications arising out of such decree or order shall be made to and disposed of by the Court as if this Act had not been passed. It is therefore the submission of Mr. Desai that because this decree which was passed on 6-3-1979 was passed before the day on which the Act came into force. Therefore according to Mr. Desai this application for execution or enforcement of a decree has to be disposed of by that Court as if the Act had not been passed. But there is a provision under the Code which provides that a Court which has passed a decree can transfer the decree to any other Court for execution. This provision is under sec. 39 of the Code. It reads:"39 (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 loca