( 1 ) THIS revision application by a decree-holder arises out of execution proceedings.

( 2 ) RAGHUNADAN Singh obtained against Bachan a decree from the Court of the Munsif (City), banaras for Rs. 5,000 and odd in September 1955. The decree-holder applied to the Court of the civil Judge, Banaras for execution of the decree, apparently on the ground that the then Munsif (City), Banaras had no jurisdiction to try a suit of the valuation of Rs. 5,000. The decree was transferred to the Collector of Banaras for execution, as landed property was involved.

( 3 ) FIRM narain Das Balkishun Das obtained against Bechan a decree from the court of Munsif (City), Banaras in 1953 for a sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd. Narain Das Balkishan Das applied to the learned Civil Judge of Banaras on 16-4-1957 for execution against Bechan judgment-debtor by way of rateable distribution in the assets received in Raghunandan Singhs decree No. 240 of 1955.

( 4 ) THIS application for execution and rateable distribution by Narain Das Balkishan Das was opposed by Ragunandan Singh. Raghunandan Singhs objection was overruled by the learned civil Judge, Banaras by his order dated 3-2-1958. This revision is directed against that order.

( 5 ) THE main question involved in this revision is whether on 16-4-1957 Narain Das Balkishan das were entitled to apply to the Civil Judge of Banaras for execution. The learned Civil Judge has observed that, the City Munsif had pecuniary jurisdiction in April 1957 up to Rs. 3,000 only. This position was not disputed before me. The question, therefore, is whether a Munsif, who has pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 3,000 can execute a decree passed by his predecessor-in-office for rs. 4,000 and odd.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for Narain Das Balkishan Das relied upon Section 37, C. P. C. Section 38, c. P. C. , lays down that, a decree may be executed either by the Court, which passed it, or by the court to which it is sent for execution. Now, the Civil Judge, Banaras did not pass the decree in question. Nor was the decree sent to him for execution.

( 7 ) BUT the expression court which passed the decree has been given an extended meaning by section 37, C. P. C. Section 37, C. P. C. , runs thus :

"the expression court which passed a decree, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees. . . . . . . . be deemed to include (a),. . . . . . . . . . . (b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit. "

If it is held that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to execute the decree, it is obvious that the competent Court for execution was the Civil Judge. We have, therefore, to consider whether the munsif (City), Banaras had jurisdiction to execute the decree.

( 8 ) IN Abdus Sattar v. Mohini Mohan Das, AIR 1933 Cal 684, it was held that, the Court which passes a decree has power to execute a decree notwithstanding the provisions of Section 37 and the Court which passed the decree does not cease to exist merely because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court has been altered.

( 9 ) IN Survanarayan v. Maheshwar Keot, AIR 1950 Assam 115, a decree for over Rs. 1,000 was passed by a Court which was presided over by an officer who had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits up to Rs. 2,000. An application for execution of the decree was made to the same Court, but at a time when it was presided over by an officer who had jurisdiction to try suits valued up to rs. 1,000 only. It was held that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the execution application.

( 10 ) THERE are authorities for the view that, a Munsif may entertain an execution application although he was not competent to try the suit which gave rise to the decree. There are also decisions to the effect that, once a Court passes a de