The pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit would be the criterion for determining the jurisdiction for executing the decree passed thereon.

ORDER :- This is a judgment-debtors petition in revision against the appellate order of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack holding that the transferee Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application in execution.

2. The sole question for consideration in this case is whether the transferee Court has the jurisdiction to execute the decree in case the amount of the decree exceeds the limits of the pecuniary jurisdiction?

3. The facts are rather simple. The decree-holder obtained an ex parte decree in the original side of the Calcutta High Court on 23-7-51 arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3966-0-3. On 11-2-53 the decree-holder filed an application for transfer of the said decree to the District Court at Cuttack for execution, and accordingly, the Calcutta High Court transferred the decree for execution to the said Court. The learned District Judge by his order dated 3-3-5S sent it for execution to the Court of the second Munsif which was a Court subordinate to him. The decretal amount for which the execution was levied stood at Rs. 4360-3-9. The decree-holder in due course filed an application on 8-3-53 for execution of the said decree. An objection was taken by the judgment-debtor-petitioner to the jurisdiction of the second munsif to execute the decree on the ground that it exceeds the pecuniary limit of the said Court which admittedly is Rs. 4,000/-.

4. The learned munsif overruled the objection and held that the valuation of the suit being within the pecuniary limits of his Court he had jurisdiction to entertain the application. The judgment-debtor Matru Mall filed an appeal against this order, and the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 23-12-54 following the decisions of the Patna High Court reported in Amrit Lal v. Murlidhar ILR 1 Pat 651 : (AIR 1922 Pat 188) (A), and Mt. Anchahi v. Finn Brijmohan Lall Madan Lall AIR 1936 Pat 177 (B) in preference to a decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Shanti Lal v. Jamni Kuer AIR 1940 All 331 (C) confirmed the order of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the present application is directed.

5. The self-same objection was raised here in this Court and it was contended that the decretal amount for which the execution was levied being in excess of the pecuniary limits of the executing Court, i.e., the Court of the second Munsif at Cuttack, the executing court has no jurisdiction. It was further contended that under O. 21, R. 8 read with S. 39, C. P. C., it is the District Court which alone would be competent to execute the decree.

6. The point raised is undoubtedly a very interesting one, on which there has been sharp divergence of opinion between the different Courts in India. While the Calcutta, Bombay and Patna High Courts have taken one view, the Madras and Allahabad High Courts took the opposite view. Before dealing with the contentions as raised by the petitioner, I would like to state at this stage, that S. 39(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court which passed the decree to transfer the same for execution to another Court on the application of the decree-holder. Sub-section (2) empowers the Court to send it, of its own motion, for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. It is now the settled view that S. 39 is controlled by S. 6. After providing for the transfer of the decree in S. 39, provision has been made under S. 42 regarding powers of the Court in executing the transferred decree. Thus, the Court executing the decree has the same powers as if it had been passed by itself. Thereafter, S. 141 lays down that the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. The entire scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, broadly speaking, is based upon the principle that an execution proceeding is a continuation of the suit and the pecuniary juris