When the Court which passed a decree, on an application filed by the decree holder transfers the decree for execution against one of the judgment debtors to another Court, whether the transferee Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree as against the other judgment debtors. Even if it is possible to execute the decree as against all the judgment debtors by the transferee Court, whether salary of a judgment debtor could be attached by that Court, when the disbursing officer of the judgment debtor is not within the jurisdiction of that Court and when judgment debtor is not an employee of the State or Central Government or railway Company or corporation engaged in trade or industry established by Central, Provincial or State Act.

2. Facts are not disputed. First respondent Bank instituted O.S.486 of 1996 before Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta for realization of the amount due. A decree for realization of amount claimed in the suit was granted jointly and severally against all the three defendants, on 30.7.1997. Decree holder filed E.P.29 of 2005 before Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta to issue notice under Rule 22 and to transfer the decree to Munsiff Court, Alappuzha for execution of the decree as against first judgment debtor. Notice was issued only to first judgment debtor. As per Ext.P1 order dated 18.2005, after serving notice on the first judgment debtor, execution petition was allowed and the decree as against first judgment debtor was transferred to Munsiff Court, Alappuzha as he is residing within the jurisdiction of that Court. The other judgment debtors are residing and employed within the jurisdiction of Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta. The decree holder thereafter filed Ext.P2 petition (E.P.142 of 2006) before Munsiff Court, Alappuzha for execution as against the first judgment debtor by attachment and sale of his property and to issue notice under rule 37 for his arrest and detention. But judgment debtors 2 and 3 were also impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 in that execution petition. A prayer was also incorporated to serve Rule 22 notice on them. Notice was served. Decree holder thereafter produced a schedule for attachment of their salary and sought order of attachment. As per Ext.P3 order dated 211.2007, executing Court ordered attachment of the salary of third judgment debtor to the extent of Rs.2,000/-or the maximum attachable portion of the salary as per Rules, whichever is less, for a period of 24 months. Third judgment debtor filed this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P3 order. Petitioner contended that Munsiff Court, Alappuzha has no jurisdiction to execute the decree as against him, as the decree as against him was not transferred to that Court when only as against first judgment debtor the decree was transferred. It was also contended that in any event Munsiff Court, Alappuzha has no jurisdiction to attach the salary of the petitioner, who is not residing or employed within the local limits of that Court and therefore Ext.P3 order is illegal and is to be quashed.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent decree holder were heard.

4. Section 38 of Code of Civil Procedure provide the Court by which a decree is to be executed. A decree can be executed by the Court which passed the decree or to which it is sent for execution. Section 39 of the Code provides for transfer of the decree for execution. Under sub rule (1), the Court which passed a decree may send the decree for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction, 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 jurisdiction of such other Court, or if such person has no property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient enough to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other C