SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Ker) 324

Judges : PAREED PILLAY
RAMANKUTTY - Appellant
Versus
KALI NANI - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 2068, 2071 of 1985
Decided On : 11/20/1985
Advocates Appeared :
R. Rajasekharan Pillai; For Petitioner K.C. John; For Respondents

The transferee court is only empowered to execute the decree and cannot review the order passed by the transferor court.

Headnote:

C.R.P. - Execution of Decree - S.42 C.P.C. - 0.21 R.26 C.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The judgment debtor filed E.A. 161/85 and E.A. 162/85 before the transferee court (Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam) to review the order passed by the transferor court (Munsiff Court, Haripad) in E.P. 81/83 for violation of injunction.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the transferee court does not have the jurisdiction to review the order passed by the transferor court and is only bound to execute it.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transferee court can review the order passed by the transferor court and the scope of its powers under S.42 C.P.C. and 0.21 R.26 C.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S.42 C.P.C. and 0.21 R.26 C.P.C. to conclude that the transferee court is only empowered to execute the decree and cannot question the legality of the decree or review the order passed by the transferor court.

Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. C.R.P. 2068/85 is against the order in E.A. 162/85 and C.R.P. 2071/85 is against the order in E. A. 161/85 in O. S.69/81 of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. E.A 162/85 was filed to review the order dated 21-2-85 in E. P. 81/83 in O.S. 69/81 of the Munsiff Court, Haripad. E.A. 161/85 has been filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing E.A. 162/85. Both the petitions were dismissed by the Munsiff, Kayamkulam.

2. In E.P. 81/83, Munsiff Court, Haripad held that violation of injunction has been proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibits marked in the case and the judgment debtor (revision petitioner) was ordered to be detained in the civil prison for not exceeding 15 days for the purpose of enforcing the decree. As the revision petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of Kayamkulam Munsiff Court, the E.P. was transferred to that court for execution. It is in that court that the revision petitioner filed E.A. 161/85 E.A. 162/85.

3. The suit was decreed on 5-7-83. E.P. 81/83 was filed by the decree holder for taking action against the judgment debtor for violation of injunction. Notice was issued and the judgment debtor entered appearance on 16-2-84 and applied for time. The case was adjourned to 16-3-84 and thereafter to 4-4-84. Again, it was adjourned to 28-5-84 with no further time order. On 28-5-84 no objection was filed. There was no representation for the judgment debtor on that date. A commission was issued by the court below to ascertain the verity of the allegations made by the decree holder. Commissioner filed his report. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on 12-6-84 and the court passed the order in E. P. 81/83 to detain the judgment debtor in civil prison. When the matter was pending before the transferee court (Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam) revision petitioner filed E.A. 161/85 and E.A. 162/85.

4. Learned counsel for the decree holder contended that the execution application filed before the transferee court is not maintainable, and the only course open to the judgment debtor is to have filed the petitions before the transferor court (Munsiff Court, Haripad). Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that under S.42 C.P.C. transferee court has the same powers as the transferor court as if the decree had been passed by itself.

5. It has to be considered as to whether the transferee court can review the order passed by the transferor court. In the present case, it is the transferor court (Munsiff Court, Haripad) which passed the order in E.P. 81/83 to detain the judgment debtor in civil prison. For the purpose of executing the order it was sent to the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam. Contention of the revision petitioner is that under S.42 of the C.P.C. the court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself and therefore the transferee court is vested with ample jurisdiction to review the order passed by the transferor court.

6. S.42 of the C.P.C. makes it clear that the transferee court has all the powers in executing a decree sent to it from another court. But, that does not mean that the transferee court can go behind the decree or any direction contained in it. Undoubtedly, the transferee court has the same powers in executing the decree as if it had been passed by itself. But, the power is confined only to the execution of the decree. It is difficult to read into the section that the transferee court can unsettle things settled by the transferor court. Though S.42 C.P.C. states that the court executing the decree sent to it has the same powers of the transferor court in executing the decree as if it had been passed by the transferee court, it is difficult to hold that it would be open to the transferee court to question the legality of the decree or order passed by the transferor court. For example, the transferee court cannot decide the question whether the decree is barred by limitation. Such questions can be







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top