BHARGAVA, J.—This civil execution appeal raises an interesting question. Though secs. 37, 38, 39 and 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been discussed in so many decisions, learned counsel for the parties have not been able to bring to my notice any decision which is directly applicable to the facts of the present case.

2. The appellants-decree-holders instituted a suit for recovery of money in the Court of Munsif. Shahpura, within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arose and the defendants had their residence. It seems that because of the heavy work on the file of the Munsif, Shahpura, this was transferred for disposal by order No. 1328 dated 26-7-55 (see Order-sheet dated 8-8-55 Civil Suit No. 293 of 1954) of the District Judge, Jaipur District to the Court of Munsif at Kotputli where a a decree was passed in favour of the appellants on 5th January, 1956. The appellants straight-away levied execution in the Court of Munsif, Shahpura, praying for the attachment and sale of judgment-debtors shop and Chobara and thereafter for the rateable distribution of the sale proceeds held by the Court in execution of their other decree. Notice of the execution application was issued to both Devi Sahai and Radhey Shyam, the judgment-debtors, which was served upon them by registered post, as will appear from the order-sheet dated 24-8-57 and postal acknowledgement receipts Nos 11-3/A, 14A and 16A. The judgment-debtors did not put in appearance and on 12-9-57 execution file was ordered to be kept for rateable distribution with the other execution case. Finally on 9-9-61 the execution petition was dismissed for non-prosecution The decree-holders then filed a second execution application No. 553 of 1961 on 14-9-61 and sought recovery of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the judgment-debtors immovable property On 27-9-61 Devi Sahai, judgment-debtor, preferred objection petition under sec. 47, Civil Procedure Code, to the effect that the Munsif Court at Shahpura had no jurisdiction to execute the decree, because it was not the Court which had passed the decree or to which the decree had been transferred for execution. The executing court upheld the judgment-debtors objection holding that without a certificate of transfer from the Munsif Court Kotputii, which had passed the decree it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the decree-polders in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur District, against Radhey Shyam and the legal representatives of Devi Sahai, who in the meantime had died. The learned District Judge maintained the order of the executing court. It is against this order that the present appeal has been directed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the Munsif Court, Shahpura, was not the Court, which had passed the decree or to which it had been sent for execution, it had inherent jurisdiction to execute it, because the judgment-debtors had their residence as well as their movable and immovable properties within its jurisdiction and it was the only court which could effectively execute the decree. The Munsif Court at Kotputali might be the court, which had passed the decree it could not give any relief to the decree-holders except making an order of transfer of decree under sec. 39, Civil Procedure Code. Reliance was placed on Ramanna vs. Nallaparaju (1), Mehar Singh vs. Kasturiram (2) and Balakrishnayya vs. Linga Rao (3). It is contended that at best the Munsif Court, Shahpura committed an irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in entertaining the execution application without an order of transfer from the Munsif Court, Kotputii. But the judgment-debtors have waived that objection, because in the first execution application inspite of service of notice upon them they did not raise such objection and the Court proceeded to pass an order for rateable distribution from the assets realised by the Court in execution of anot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document