The certification of the result of an execution proceeding is a judicial act, and a formal order of the transferee court to that effect is necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 41 of the CPC.

K. P. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in Misc. Case No. 130 of 1981 under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'code') restoring Execution Case No. 63 of 1972.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts may be stated in brief. The opposite party (plaintiff-decree-holder) obtained a decree from the Bombay High Court on 24-11-1965 in Suit No. 575 of 1964 against the petitioners (defendants-judgment-debtors ). The said decree was transferred to the court of the learned 'subordinate Judge, Puri for execution. Accordingly execution was levied in the aforesaid court against the petitioners on 25-4-1972 in Execution Case No. 63 of 1972 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,288. 44 paise by sale of movable and immovable properties. The decree could not be executed until 22-4-81 when the opposite party was directed to take steps in aid of execution. On that day the opposite party applied for adjournment which was refused and the execution case was dismissed for default. On 30-4-81 the fact of dismissal of the execution case was intimated to the transferor Court. On 22-6-1981 the opposite party made a petition under S. 151 of the Code for restoration of the execution case stating therein that steps could not be taken on 22-4-81 on account of sudden serious illness of the father of the opposite party's advocate and also due to illness of its manager. Petitioner No. 1 in his counter alleged negligence by the opposite party and stated that the illness pleaded did not constitute sufficient cause for restoration. The execution case was barred by limitation and the court lacked jurisdiction to direct its restoration. The learned Subordinate Judge by the impugned order held that he had jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the petition for restoration and as there was sufficient cause he directed restoration of the execution case.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners raised the following contentions : -I) After dismissal of the execution case on 22-4-81, the result thereof having been communicated on 30-4-81 to the transferor Court, the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri being the transferee Court had no jurisdiction to restore the execution case. II) In the absence of proof of sufficient cause the learned Subordinate Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally in invoking inherent powers under S. 151 of the Code. III) As the execution case stood barred by limitation under Art. 136 after dismissal on 22-6-81, the same could not be restored. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, made reference to Rr. 105 and 106 of O. 21 of the Code and urged that the executing court before certification of the result of the execution case under S. 41 of the Code had jurisdiction to direct restoration irrespective of whether the execution petition stood barred by limitation by that date. The points raised require careful examination.

( 4 ) SS. 39 and 40 of the Code provide for transfer of a decree to a court of competent jurisdiction either within the State or in another State. S. 41 of the Code provides that the court to which a decree is sent for execution shall certify to the Court which passed it the fact of such execution, or where the former Court fails to execute the same, the circumstances attending such failure. As already referred to above, Execution Case No. 63 of 72 was dismissed for default by the learned Subordinate Judge on 22-4-81. Misc. Case No. 130 of 1981 for restoration of the execution case was registered on 22-6-81. In between these two dates no order was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge as contemplated in Section 41 of the Code. On the other hand, a marginal note "result sent on 30-4-81" in column 4 of the order-sheet against order dt. 22-4-81 was presumably made by the Clerk of the Court. Column 4 of the order-sheet indicates "office action taken with date". It thus seems that the result of the execution case on th