Validity of order for return of the petition.

M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.

1. The above revision is filed assailing the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, made in E.P.No. 50 of 1979 in O.S.No. 21 of 1965, on 29th October, 1980.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent in this revision filed O.S.No. 21 of 1965 before the Sub-Court, Devakottai against the revision petitioner and others for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 33,000 odd. An ex-parte decree was passed on 30th April, 1966 against the petitioner and those who figured as defendants in the suit. I.A.No. 315 of 1966 in O.S.No. 21 of 1965 was filed by the petitioner and others to set aside the ex-parte decree which petition was dismissed on 3rd October, 1966. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, civil miscellaneous appeal was filed before this Court and this Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal on condition that the defendants in the suit should pay a sum of Rs. 200 by way of costs to the decree-holder within six weeks from that date. That order was not complied with. Hence, the ex-parte decree passed in the suit, had become final. There after E.A.No. 183 of 1974 was filed by the decree-holder on 26th August, 1974 before the Sub-Court, Devakottai, seeking an order to transmit the decree for execution to the District Munsifs Court, Karur. That was ordered on 26th September, 1974. The papers were sent to District Munsifs Court, Karur. While so, the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in and by which, the decree pending before the District Munsifs Court, Karur, could not be executed for want of jurisdiction. O.P.No. 126 of 1974 was filed by the decree-holder before the District Judge, Tiruchy and in I.A.No. 228 of 1978 an order was passed by the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli on 30th January, 1979 to the following effect:

Interim stay granted on 29th August, 1978 is vacated so that the trial Court may return the E.P. on petition to enable the petitioner to present the E.P. in proper Court.

I have quoted the order of the District Judge as it is, for much depends on the wording of the order. In pursuance of the aforesaid order passed by the District Judge, Tiruchy, E.P.No. 111 of 1975 which was filed by the decree-holder before the District Munsifs Court, Karur was returned to the petitioner for presentation before the proper Court by his order, dated 27 February, 1979. There after the papers in E.P.No. 111 of 1975 which were returned to the respondent herein (decree-holder), were presented to the Sub Court, Karur having jurisdiction where the said execution petition was renumbered as E.P.No. 50 of 1979. Notices were sent to the judgment-debtors on the same date including the petitioner herein. It was contended by the judgment-debtors before the Subordinate Judge, Karur that the execution petition filed by the decree-holder before the Sub-Court, was barred by limitation. The Sub-Court, Karur after framing points for determination, held that the execution petition is not barred by time and thus the Sub-Court negatived the contention of the petitioner and others by its order, dated 29th October, 1980. Thereafter the matter was posted for settlement of terms on 7th November, 1980. It may at this stage be stated that there were three judgment-debtors, namely, Mayandi Chettiar, Muthal Achi and Palaniappan. It is only Muthal Achi and Palaniappan who questioned the order of the Sub-Court, Karur in E.P.No. 50 of 1979 dated 29th October, 1980 at the first instance, and in (sic) C.R.P.Nos. 3233 of 1980 and 332 of 1981. Sengottuvelan, J. by a common order, dated 26th day of February, 1982 dismissed the two civil revision petitions.

3. Before Sengottuvelan, J. it was contended by the two judgment-debtors that the transferee Court can entertain the execution petition only in pursuance of an order of the transferor Court and, since, there is no order of a transferor Court in this case to transmit the decree to the proper Court, the execution petition is not maintainable. Incidentally it was also contended by th