The court emphasized the concept of merger of Decrees from appellate forums and the limited powers of the executing court under Section 47 CPC.

This revision is directed against the Order of dismissal of Section 47 Petition in E.A.No.3570/2006 in E.P.No.249/2006 in O.S.No.649/1977. 8th Defendant in O.S.No.649/1977 is the Revision Petitioner.

2. Relevant facts for disposal of this Revision Petition are as follows:-

2. 1. Plaintiffs/Subramaniam Mudaliar and Rajavelu Mudaliar have filed the suit O.S.No.649/1977 against the Petitioner who is the 8th Defendant and seven others, for delivery of possession of the premises bearing D.No.225, Sengunthar Street, Velacheri, Saidapet Taluk and also for arrears of rent and other reliefs. The said suit was decreed on 14.08.2001. Against the said Judgment and Decree, the Defendants preferred Appeal in A.S.No.14/1982 before the District Court, Chengalpat and the said appeal was dismissed on 211. 1982. Second Appeal preferred in S.A.No.1087/1983 was also dismissed by the High Court on 30.12.2003.

2. 2. At the time of filing the suit, the suit property was within the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. Subsequently, the suit property came within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai. On application filed by the Decree-Holders in E.A.No.240/2004, the Decree in O.S.No.649/1977 was transmitted to City Civil Court, Chennai by the Order dated 07.09.2004. E.P.No.249/ 2006 was filed for execution of the Decree.

3. In the said E.P., the Petitioner/D-8 filed E.A.No.3570/2006 under Section 47 CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the Court, disputing the identity of suit property and raising the plea of limitation. In the said application, son of the Petitioner viz., Hariharan was examined as PW-1 and the Power of Attorney of the Legal Representatives of Decree-Holders was examined as RW-1. Holding that the execution Petition is well within the period of limitation and negativing the contention raised regarding the identity of the suit property, the Execution Court held that there was no discrepancy in the identity of the property and dismissed the application, which is challenged in this Revision Petition.

3. Reiterating the points raised in the Execution Court, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner interalia raised the following contention:-

"Decree was passed on 04.08.1981 and Execution Petition filed in 2006 is time barred. Reliance placed upon 2006 (2) CCC 257;

"City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to execute the Decree since the Order of transmitting the Decree is not in Order and the transferee Court ought to have directed the Decree-Holder to get proper certificate from District Munsif Court, Poonamallee;

"Evidence of PW-1 was not properly appreciated and the Execution Court has not properly considered the points raised regarding the discrepancy of the schedule property.

4. Drawing the attention of the Court to the filing of the second appeal S.A.No.1087/1993, which was dismissed on 30.12.2003, the learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that Decree of trial Court merged with the Decree passed in the second appeal and hence Execution Petition filed in 2006 is maintainable. For the proposition that when the appellate forum is invoked and appeal is entertained, for all intent and purport the suit continues, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon 2004 (8) SCC 724.

5. The objection regarding the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court hardly merits acceptance. At the time when suit O.S.No.649/1977 was filed, the suit property in Velachery was within the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. With the extension of limits of Chennai Corporation, the property in Velachery limits fell within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai. For the execution of the Decree by competent Court, on application made by the Decree-Holders in E.A.NO.240/2004, Decree was transmitted to the City Civil Court, Chennai. Section 42 CPC expressly gives the Court executing the Decree sent to it; the same powers in executing such Decree, as if it had been passed by itself. The expression