( 1 ) THIS is a decree-holders second appeal against an order of the learned Civil Judge, Agra, upholding the judgment-debtors objection to the execution of his decree. It raises an interesting question of law relating to the effect of the recent amendment of Section 42 C. P. C. The facts of the case are these:

( 2 ) THE decree-holder Karam Chand obtained a decree for Rs. 58. 0/- with costs against GUR dayal from the Judge Small Cause Court, Agra. He wanted to execute it by attachment of some immovable property of the judgment-debtor. As the Small Cause Court is debarred by Order 21 rule 82 and Order 50 Rule 1 C. P. C. , from proceeding against immovable property in execution of decrees, the appellant Karam Chand obtained a transfer of his decree to the Court o the munsiff, Agra, and secured from that Court an order of attachment against some immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The latter, however, objected that, in view of the amendment of Section 42 C. P. C. by the State Legislature, the Munsiff Agra had no jurisdiction to proceed against immovable property. The objection was upheld by the execution Court and also in appeal by the learned Civil Judge. The decree-holder has now come to this Court in second appeal.

( 3 ) THE powers of an execution Court are defined in Section 51 of the C. P. C. On the application of the decree-holder, the Court can order execution of the decree (1) by delivery of any property specifically decreed, or (2) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment of any property, or (3) by arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in prison, or (4) by appointing a receiver; or (5) in such other manner as the nature of the relief granted to the decree-holder may require. Order 21 Rule 82 of the Code says that the sale of immovable property in execution of the decree may bs ordered by any Court other than a Court of Small Causes. Order 50 Rule 1, inter alia, enjoins in effect that the rules relating to the execution of the decrees against immovable properties shall not extend to the Courts of Small Causes. The combined effect is to debar Courts of Small Causes from levying execution against the immovable properly of a judgment-debtor.

( 4 ) PRIOR to the amendment of Section 42, the practice was to transfer a decree passed by a Small cause Court to another Court if the decree-holder wanted to proceed against any immovable property of the judgment-debtor. Section 42 before the amendment ran thus:

"the Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such Court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree. And its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed, by itself. "

( 5 ) THUS the Munsiffs Court, to whom a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes was transferred, could order execution by attachment of immovable property by treating the decree as if it had been passed by itself. In 1954, however, the State Legislature passed an Act amending section 42. The new section runs thus :

"42. The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same power in executing such decree as the Court which passed it. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of decree shall be punishable by such Court in the same manner as if ft had passed the decree, and its order in executing Each decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been parsed by itself. "

( 6 ) THE effect of the change is clear. Previously, the Court to which the decree was transferred for execution enjoyed the same powers as if the decree had been passed by itself; but after the amendment, it has the same power as the Court which actually passed the decree.

( 7 ) THE amendment of Section 42 was a part of the U. P. Civil Laws (Ref