BHARGAVA, J.—These two appeals between the same parties raise a common question of law and are, therefore, being dealt with together.

2. The decree-holder appellants instituted a suit in the court of the Sub-Judge, Ajmer for possession of immovable property valued at Rs; 6000/-and for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 770/-on 5th February, 1945. The defendants objected that the suit was under valued and the value of the disputed property was near about Rs. 15000/-. The learned Sub Judge by his order dated 10th July, 1945 held that the valuation of the suit property excluding the amount of mesne profits was Rs. 8500/-. A revision application was taken to the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer Merwara who by his order dated 29th August, 1945 directed the Nazir of the District Court to enquire into the valuation of the house and the land on which it stood and certify the result to that court. The District Nazirs report was received by that court and objections were filed against it. The learned Judicial Commissioner by his order dated 24th October, 1945 remitted the case to the trial court with a direction to fix the valuation of the site and the buildings in the light of the remarks made in the earlier judgment i.e., 29th August, 1945 and after examination and cross-examination of the district Nazir, However, before the correct value of the suit property was determined by the sub Judge the case was transferred by the District Judge to the court of Sub Judge, First Class, Ajmer whose jurisdiction extended upto Rs. 50,000/-. In view of the jurisdiction of the Sub-Judge First Class extending upto Rs. 50,000/-the objection regarding jurisdiction and the valuation of the property was not pressed by the defendants and thus the case came to be tried in that court without correct valuation of the property having been determined. Eventually after trial the suit was dismissed on 17-12-1953. This decree was however, reversed by the High Court on 19-4-1960 and the suit was decreed. Govind Narain Mathur vs. Smt. Mohinidevi (1-a). The decree holders on 5-4-1953 filed an application for execution in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer and also got it transferred with a certificate to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur where an execution application was presented for realisation of mesne profits. Thus the execution application for recovery of possession remained on the record of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer while the decree for recovery of mesne profits was transferred to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur who further transferred it to the court of the Senior Civil Judge, No. 1 Jaipur City. Before both these courts the judgment debtors raised an objection that the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer had neither the jurisdiction to entertain the execution application nor to transfer it for execution to the court of the District Judge, Jaipur City.

3. It was contended that the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer was neither the court which passed the decree nor the court to which it was sent for execution. According to the judgment debtors, Senior Civil Judges court was also not the court of first instance competent to execute the decree passed by the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction. It was also contended that after the abolition of the court of Sub Judge First Class Ajmer, a new court after the integration of Ajmer state into Rajasthan, of Civil Judge was established and it was the latter court which alone was competent to execute the decree as at the time of the application for execution of the decree it had jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. This objection prevailed in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer who in his order dated 8th March, 1965 opined that Civil Judges court was the proper court to execute the decree, but simultaneously on the same date he made a request to the District Judge Ajmer to transfer the execution file to the Civil Judges Court and accordingly the District Judge, Ajmer transferred the executio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document