Exercise of power for transferring extension proceedings.

This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of law regarding the scope of section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code in its application to proceedings in execution.

A decree was passed in Original Suit No. 1 of 1962 by the Sub Court, Dindigul in the Madurai district. The execution proceedings were initiated in that Court, and since the property to be proceeded against was situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Sivaganga, in the Ramanathapuram district the decree was transferred to the Sub-Court, Sivaganga, following the procedure indicated in section 39, Civil Procedure Code, read with Order XXI. rules 5 and 8, Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter some allegations were made about the propriety of the execution being continued in the Sub-Court, Sivaganga because of the manner in which adjournments were being granted by the Subordinate Judge while dealing with the execution petition. The decree-holder filed a petition before the District Judge, Ramanathapuram under section 24, Civil Procedure Code for transfer and after hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge transferred the execution petition to the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai for further execution and disposal. It is not in dispute that the property sought to be proceeded against is situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Sivaganga and no part of it is situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram.

Against this decision this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the judgment-debtor-respondent in the Court below. Sri P. Balasubrahmanyam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, urged that under section 24, Civil Procedure Code, the District Court, had no jurisdiction to transfer to another Court execution proceedings pending in one Subordinate Court after transfer to it under section 39, Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, it was urged that even if under section 24 it had power to transfer execution proceedings, the transfer could be made only to a Court which had jurisdiction over the property or the person against whom execution was sought.

We will briefly refer to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which deal with this matter. Under section 39, Civil Procedure Code, the Court which passed the decree, may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court if the person against whom the decree is passed is a resident therein or carries on business therein, or if he has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such transferee Court. Section 39 (1) (d) gives power to the Court which passed the decree to transfer the decree to another Court even for other reasons, which should be recorded in writing. Section 42 enables the Court to which a decree is so sent for execution, to execute it as if it had itself passed the decree. After execution is over, it has to certify the result of the execution to the Court which passed the decree as provided in section 41. Civil Procedure Code. These are the substantial provisions relating to the transfer of execution proceedings. They have to be supplemented by Order XXI, rules 3 to 9, Civil Procedure Code, which give the details of the procedure. Under Order XXI, rule 5 if the decree is to be sent for execution to a Court in a different district, it shall be sent first to the District Court, and that Court under Order XXI, rule 8, may transfer the decree to a Court subordinate to it, of competent jurisdiction. This Court of competent jurisdiction will be the Court in whose jurisdiction the property is situate or the judgment-debtor resides or carries on a business. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code gives power to two superior Courts, viz., the High Court or the District Court to withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceedings pending in any Court subordinate to it and either try and dispose of the same, or transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court, subordinate to it and competent to try or