The court executing a decree need not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter.

( 1 ) THIS is judgment-debtors writ petition.

( 2 ) M/s. Moti Lal Ram Ji Das, opposite party No. 3, filed a suit, against the petitioner for recovery of money, in the court of Judge Small Causes. It was decreed on 7-11-1980 for a sum Rs. 1,111. 00. The decree became final.

( 3 ) DECREE-HOLDER filed an execution case No. 14 of 1982. The agricultural land belonging to the petitioner was attached. A date was fixed for auction sale.

( 4 ) AT the time of the auction the decree-holder filed an application on 8-4-1982 for permission to participate in the auction. It was allowed. He was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted. Sale was confirmed on 263-1983. Sale certificate was issued in his favour.

( 5 ) JUDGMENT-DEBTOR filed an objection (paper No. 3/c) under S. 47, Civil P. C. His objections were that the agricultural land could not be attached and sold in execution of decree of Small Causes Court. He also raised an objection that the decree could not be transferred and the transferee court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution.

( 6 ) THE learned Munsif rejected the objections on 1-12-1983. A revision was filed. It was dismissed on 12-5-1984. The present writ petition is directed against the said order.

( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the decree was passed by Judge Small Causes. S. 38, Civil P. C. prescribes that the decree may be executed eid eitd either by the court which passed it, or by the court to which it is sent for execution. S. 39 (2), Civil P. C. provides that the court which passed the decree may on the application of the decree-holder send it for execution to another court of competent jurisdiction S. 39 (3), Civil P. C. , which is relevant for this case, runs as follows :"39 (3) For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction if, at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, such court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such decree was passed. "

( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of S. 39, Civil P. C. has been amended from time to time by the State of U. P. The first amendment was brought in the year 1954 by means of U. P. Act No. 24 of 1954. It was again amended in 1970 (U. P. Act No. 14 of 1970 ). The latest amendment was brought in 1978 by U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978. It became applicable with effect from 1-8-1978. It is still in operation. It reads as follows :-" (3) For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit wherein the decree was passed does not exceed the pecuniary limits, if any, or its ordinary jurisdiction at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, notwithstanding that it had otherwise no jurisdiction to try the suit. "

( 9 ) THE phrase competent jurisdiction used in sub-section (3) of S. 39, Civil P. C. as amended by State of U. P. refers to pecuniary jurisdiction only and therefore if the transferee court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree is sought to be executed, the transferee court would be a court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of S. 39, Civil P. C.

( 10 ) THIS phrase does not mean that the court executing the decree should have the jurisdiction over the subject-matter and to pass the decree in the suit itself.

( 11 ) COURTS while interpreting the Statute always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislatures intention is, that every part of the Statute should have its effect. Reference may be made to AIR 1961 SC 1170, J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. State of U. P.

( 12 ) THE language used in sub-section (3) of S. 39, Civil P. C. of U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978 gives a clear indication that while interpreting the scope of sub-section (3) of S. 39 the courts have only to keep it in mind that it refers to pecuniary jurisdiction and not the jurisdiction over the subject-matter. Reference ma