Point of Law : A perusal of the provisions of Section 42 CPC makes it pellucid that an Executing Court to which the decree is transferred for execution has all the powers of the Court originally possessed of the jurisdiction to execute it. The Court to which a decree is sent for execution under Section 42 would a fortiori have the power to entertain objections to execution, which the Court originally possessed of jurisdiction would have.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has applied under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the proceedings of Execution Case No. 9 of 2017, Ram Ujagir v. Vinod, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkarnagar. The decree, whereof execution is now sought, was passed in a partition suit that is dreadfully ancient. The suit is Original Suit No. 138 of 1925. The preliminary decree in the suit was passed on 07.12.1926. The petitioner, who appears to be a successor of one of the defendants to the suit and a judgment-debtor, is at issue with the respondents, who are the successors or assigns of the plaintiff or the decree holders. The issue is about the bar of limitation to the execution of the final decree. According to the petitioner, the final decree was passed on 18.01.1988, whereas, according to the respondents, it was passed on 04.01.1996. It appears that this wide variation in dates comes about on account of the time spent in depositing the requisite court fee payable on the shares of parties. This Court does not wish to express any opinion about the date on which executable final decree for partition came into existence.

2. The proceedings for execution were instituted on 12.01.2011 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad. On 12.01.2011, the execution case was registered on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Faizabad as Execution Case No. 13 of 2011. Later on, considering the fact that the property to be partitioned was located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambedkarnagar, a district that was carved out later from the area of Faizabad, the decree was sent for execution by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad to the District Judge, Ambedkarnagar through a memo dated 16.05.2017. The case was assigned by the District Judge to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkarnagar, where it was registered as Execution Case No. 9 of 2017. In this execution, the petitioner filed objections under Section 47 CPC, raising a plea about the bar of limitation. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkarnagar declined to entertain this objection on ground that the Court at Ambedkarnagar is in seisin of the execution that has been sent to it merely for execution of the decree by the Court at Faizabad. As such, in the opinion of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambedkarnagar, he had no jurisdiction to stay or defer execution. The objection under Section 47 was not entertained, and the application for stay was rejected vide order dated 01.09.2018.

3. The petitioner thereupon moved an application before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad in Execution Case No. 13 of 2021, seeking to summon the records of Original Suit No. 138 of 1925 on the basis of whatever legal advice he received. The Court declined to entertain any application in Execution Case No. 13 of 2011, inasmuch as in the opinion of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad, the execution had already been transferred to the Court at Ambedkarnagar, leaving the Court at Faizabad with no jurisdiction to pass any orders in relation to it.

4. The substance of the petitioner's grievance is that his plea about the bar of limitation to execution has not been examined by the Court either at Ambedkarnagar or Faizabad, when, according to him, he has a substantial case to resist execution on that ground. It is in those circumstances that he has applied to this Court to judge his plea about the bar of limitation on merits, going by the apparent calendar of dates and the way the law of limitation would apply.

5. I have heard Mr. Shobh Nath Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Badrish Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents.

6. Section 42 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that deals with powers of the Court in executing a transferred decree in its application to the State of U.P. vide U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1970 reads :

42. Power of Court in executing transferred decree-(1) T