1. The petitioner is a third party in O.S.No. 377 of 2001 and E.P.No. 301 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi, in a suit for possession. He claims to be the obstructor.

2. The petitioner filed E.A.No.290 of 2012 and sought for transferring the said execution petition to the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, on the ground that the said Court alone has got pecuniary jurisdiction over the suit property, in pursuant to the amendment made under Act 1 of 2004 to Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act 1873 and Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892. The said application was rejected by the Court below. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

3. The short facts for deciding the case are as follows:-The respondent herein as the plaintiff filed O.S.No.193 of 1999 originally on the file of the Sub Court, Udumalpet which came to be transferred to Sub Court, Pollachi and renumbered as O.S.No. 377 of 2001, against one V.Philiph Truthuvadas seeking for delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and for directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 per month towards future mesne profits and for payment of Rs. 46,200/- towards arrears of rent. The said defendant remained exparte. Consequently, an exparte decree came to be passed on 10.2. 2003 by decreeing the suit as prayed for. It is seen that the sole defendant died after the decree.

4. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed E.P.No.301 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi, which passed the decree, against the legal representatives of the defendant. The petitioner herein, as a third party, filed an application in E.A.No. 290 of 2012 and sought for transfer of the execution petition to the District Munsif Court, Pollachi by contending that he is the obstructor and the District Munsif Court, Pollachi, alone got jurisdiction to execute the decree in view of the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction on such court in pursuant to the Amendment Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2004 .

5. The said application was resisted by the respondent herein by contending that the petitioner has got no locus standi to question the jurisdiction as he is only a tenant under the defendant. It is also stated therein that the petitioner himself had already filed a suit in O.S.No. 469 of 2002 to declare the decree as void. It is further contented that the Court, which passed the decree is having every jurisdiction to execute the same.

6. The Court below after hearing both sides, rejected the application by holding that it has got jurisdiction to execute the decree as per Section 38 of CPC and the situations contemplated under Section 37 are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the Amendment Act 1 of 2004, which came into force on 8.1.2004, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court has been enhanced upto to Rs.One lakh and therefore, when the suit was valued for less than Rs. One lakh, the decree, though granted earlier to 8.1.2004, has to be executed only by the Court which has jurisdiction to try such suits. Hence, he submitted that the District Munsif Court, Pollachi alone has got jurisdiction to execute the decree. In support of his submission he relied on the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2012 (2) CTC 89 (Sivabakkiyam Muthusamy Trust Vs. S.Sivasankaran).

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the situations contemplated under Section 37 CPC did not arise in this case and as such the Sub Court, Pollachi which passed the decree has got every jurisdiction to execute the same as per Section 38 of CPC. He further submitted that when the decree came to be passed on 10.2.2003 and the Amendment Act 1/ 2004 came into force only on 8.1.2004, the petitioner is not justified in relying on the decision reported in 2012 (2) CTC 89 (Sivabakkiyam Muthusamy Trust Vs. S.Sivasankaran). He fu