Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, for the revisionist.

2. This revision has been filed against the order of Executing Court, dated 22.5.2017, rejecting the objection of the revisionist/judgment debtor under Section 47 C.P.C., filed in Execution Case No. 7 of 2016.

3. Anil Dua Alias Titu filed a suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 88 of 2013) for arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of Sanjay Sharma Alias Pintu, from house No. 123/221 (new number 123/336), situated at Gaderian Purawa, Kanpur Nagar. According to the valuation as set forth in plaint at the time of filing of the suit, it was cognizable by District Judge exercising power of Judge Small Cause Court. The suit was filed before District Judge/Judge Small Cause Court. It was transferred and tried by Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar. During pendency of the suit, Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force w.e.f. 7.12.2015, by which Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 was amended and pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge/Judge Small Cause Court was enhanced for the suit of Rs. One lakh and above. However, none of the parties made any application for transfer of the suit to Civil Judge (Senior Division). Suit was tried and after hearing the parties, it was decreed by judgment of Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar dated 14.7.2016.

4. Sanjay Sharma Alias Pintu filed a revision (registered as SCC Revision No. 269 of 2016), from the aforesaid decree, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 23.8.2016. Sanjay Sharma Alias Pintu filed Special Leave to Appeal Petition (Civil) No. 35776 of 2016, against aforesaid decree. Supreme Court dismissed it by judgment dated 14.12.2016.

5. Anil Dua Alias Titu (decree holder) filed an application (registered as Execution Case No. 7 of 2016) for execution of the decree dated 14.7.2016. Sanjay Sharma Alias Pintu (the revisionist) filed an objection (registered as Misc. Case No. 209/74 of 2017) under Section 47 C.P.C., alleging therein that as pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge was enhanced by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 7.12.2015, as such Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, thereafter and decree dated 14.7.2016 passed by him is nullity. The objection under Section 47 C.P.C. was heard by Executing Court, who by order dated 22.5.2017 rejected the objection, holding that there is no merit in objection and the objector has given an undertaking before Supreme Court for vacating the premises within three months as such he cannot be permitted to raise objection in execution. Hence this revision has been filed.

6. The counsel for the revisionist submitted that pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge exercising power of Judge Small Cause Court was enhanced to Rs. one lakh and above, by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 7.12.2015, as such Special Judge (E.C. Act), Kanpur Nagar had no jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, thereafter as valuation of the suit was below Rs. one lakh and decree dated 14.7.2016 passed by him in the suit is nullity and not executable. She relied upon judgments of this Court in Tejumal v. Mohd. Sartaz and Shobhit Nigam (Shri) v. Smt. Batulan, 2016(10) ADJ 230, in which it has been held that after coming into force of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 7.12.2015, District Judge had no jurisdiction to try SCC suits below the valuation of Rs. One lakh and decree passed by him subsequent to 7.12.2015 is nullity. Judgment in Kwality Restaurant (M/S) v. Sunil Khetrapal, 2016 (3) ARC 503, in which it has been held that after enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, cases below the limit of pecuniary jurisdiction are liable to be transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction. So far as direction of Supreme Court to give u