Subsequent execution petition to be treated as reminder to earlier appeal filed by decree holder.

The second judgment-debtor in O.S.No.l650 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, is the revision petitioner. Since caveat has been entered by the decree holder, with the consent of the parties, the civil revision petition has been heard.

2. The decree holder/respondent obtained a decree on 12. 1981 for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,000 against the firm 1st defendant and as per the decree, the entire decree amount has to be discharged in 23 instalments at the rate of Rs.1,000, It is not disputed that the agreement was violated and the amount was not paid in time, The decree holder filed execution petition for the recovery of the same.

3. In the counter statement filed by the revision petitioner, he contended that the execution petition is not maintainable, and since the decree is against the firm, it could not be proceeded against the petitioner in his individual capacity. He further said that the decree was passed by the Sub Court, Krishnagiri as per the valuation of Rs.30,000. But in 1984, the decree was transferred from Sub Court, Krishnagiri, to the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, which is not the competent Court. In other words, the decree ought to have been transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction and consequently, the transfer of the decree to the district Munsif Court, itself is void. It is said that since the transfer is invalid, execution itself is not maintainable. It is further said that even before the certificate was issued by the transferor court, execution petition has been filed and at the time when the decree holder filed the execution petition, the decree, was not before the execution Court. Therefore, it is contended that the very filing of the application is not maintainable and the execution petition was also transferred without jurisdiction. It is also said that since the transfer is invalid, the present execution application filed was to be treated as a new execution application filed beyond 12 years after the decree and therefore, on the ground also, the decree holder is not entitled to recover amount.

4. All these contentions were found against by the execution court and the execution petition was proceeded with and the decree holder was permitted to recover the entire amount from the revision petitioner as well as other defendants. It is against that decree, the 2nd judgment-debtor alone has preferred this revision;

5. The only point that is canvassed at the time of arguments in this revision is that the execution petition filed before the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, even before the certificate issued by the Subordinate Judge, is not maintainable and therefore, there was no decree enabling the execution. The contention is that the execution application has to be treated as a new application after the lase of 12 years from the date of decree.

6. I cannot agree with the above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not as if the decree was transferred for execution at the request of the decree holder. When the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts was changed and the value was increased insofar as the Munsif Courts are concerned, the execution application filed before the Subordinate Judge had to be transferred to the District Munsif Court. The entire file including the decree and the execution petition filed by the decree holder before the Subordinate Judge were transferred to the District Munsif Court. Therefore, the contention that without a certificate, the execution petition, could not be filed in the District Munsif Court, cannot stand. Further, this contention also cannot legally be sustained. As per the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, under Sec.99-A, an order,under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not to be revised or modified unless the decision of the case is prejudicially affected. Even if’ there is an irregularity in entertaining the execution petition before the certificate was detained, unless prejudice i