M.C. JAIN, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated November 23, 1979 passed by the Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, in execution case No. 8/1977, whereby the judgment-debtor petitioners objection, regarding the jurisdiction of the court to execute the decree, was rejected.

2. The suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, was decreed by the trial court on January 13, 1969 and the said decree was affirmed in the first appeal and second appeal on May 23,1974 and April 29, 1975 respectively and a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the Supreme Court and a decree in pursuance of compromise was passed on November 17,1976. Thereafter, the decree-holder submitted an application for execution in the court of Munsiff, City Jodhpur on March 18, 1977. In the execution application, the judgment-debtor submitted his objections under Sec. 47 C.P.C. read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. on April 5, 1977. The execution as well as the objection petition No. 41/1977 were transferred from the Court of Munsiff to the Court of Additional Civil Judge. Jodhpur, by the order of District Judge, Jodhpur, No. 473 dated October 5, 1977. Thereafter again both the cases were transferred by the District Judge to the court of Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by his order No. 521 dated November 8, 1977. The learned Additional Munsiff, by his order dated January 31, 1978 dismissed the transferred objection-petition on September 7, 1978. The judgment-debtor further submitted in execution objection purporting to be in reply to the notice under Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. One of the objections raised was that the court to which the execution application has been transferred by the District Judge, has no jurisdiction to execute the decree as that court has neither passed the decree nor that court is the court to which the decree is sent for execution by the court which has passed the decree. The learned Additional Munsiff after hearing both the parties decided the objection against the judgment-debtor by the impugned order. Aggrieved against that order, the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition.

3. I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot learned counsel for the petitioner judgment-debtor and Mr. G.M. Mehta learned counsel for the non-petitioner Decree-holder.

4. Mr. Bhoot learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure only the court which has passed the decree or the court to which the decree has been sent for execution have powers to execute the decree. He urged that the court to which the execution case is sent for execution, under section 24 C.P.C. has no jurisdiction to execute the decree in view of the provisions contained in sections 38 and 39. He submitted that the expression "Court which passed the decree" has been defined under Sec. 37. Unless the transferee court under section 24 is covered by this expression, the transferee court can have no jurisdiction to execute the decree. If there is any ground for transfer which may be covered under Sec 24 C.P.C, according to Shri Bhoot, it is only the court which has passed the decree, can transfer the decree under clause (d) of section 39. In the present case, he submitted that the court of the Additional Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No. 1, is not the court which has passed the decree and that court does not answer the description of the court as defined under Sec. 37. so powers under section 24 could not have been exercised by the District Judge for transfer of the execution case, although in section 24 a word "proceeding" has been explained to mean proceeding for execution of a decree or order. According to Shri Bhoot. proceeding in the nature of execution can of coruse be transferred by the District Judge under section 24 but it can only be transferred to any subordinate court which is competent to try or dispose of the same and sections 37 and 38 deal with such courts which are compete

Click Here to Read the rest of this document