The executing Court must have territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of property, and it cannot go behind or beyond the decree. The amount deposited by the respondent did not fully satisfy the decree, and the executing Court failed to comply with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding certification of the result of the execution to the transferor Court.

This petition is directed against the Order dated 25-3-2011 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Indore in Execution Case 14A/2002-2003.Relevant facts leading to this petition are as under.

2.A registered partnership firm in the name and style of "Refrigeration Industries" was constituted.Petitioner and Late Shri Y.N.Bhargava-grandfather of respondent No.1 and others were partners in the firm.Late Shri Y.N.Bhargava was the Managing Partner of the firm.A notice for dissolution was issued by some of the partners to the grandfather of the respondent No.1.Ultimately, present petitioner filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the partnership firm and rendition of accounts.

3.On 27-4-1981 trial Court passed a preliminary decree declaring that the partnership firm stood dissolved and directed that the accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities.Receiver appointed during the suit was directed to continue till final decree was passed.A Chartered Accountant was also appointed as Commissioner to scrutinise the accounts of the firm.

4.After the preliminary decree was passed original judgment-debtor late Shri Y.N.Bhargava had executed a Will in favour of his grandson, the present respondent No.1.The Will executed by late Y.N.Bhargava designating respondent No.1 as legatee was probated.

5.After considering the Commissioner's Report which was submitted after scrutinising accounts, trial Court passed the final decree in the suit. Under the final decree, late Shri Y.N.Bhargava was found liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,66,292.50; sum of Rs.5,000/-as his share of fees to the Commissioner/Receiver and sum of? 10,83,757 to other partners. It was also directed that as per Agreement Ex.P-5 after the dissolution of the firm, petitioner would be entitled to use the properties of the Firm. In first appeal, this Court affirmed the final decree with slight modification, inasmuch as later part of the direction was set aside, and the trial Court was directed "to find out that after settlement of accounts, if any property of the firm is still remains, then the cost of the property be assessed and may be divided amongst all partners as per their share in accordance with the directions issued by the trial Court in the preliminary decree."

6.The decree-holder put the final decree in execution in the District Court Gwalior. In execution proceedings, the decree-holder, filed an application for an injunction restraining the person holding the building said to have been bequeathed to the judgment-debtor by his grandfather, from handing over possession of the same to the judgment-debtor and from handing over the documents of title to him.He also sought a direction restraining the Bank holding an account of the estate from permitting the judgment-debtor to operate the accounts. The executing Court passed an order on 19-3-2003 directing the occupant of the building as well as the Bank not to transfer to the judgment-debtor the properties enumerated in the list submitted by the decree-holder.The person holding the building moved the executing Court praying that he be relieved from the responsibility of managing the property. He also produced certain documents in the executing Court with a prayer that he be relieved of his obligations. On 7-7-2003, the executing Court, after taking notice of the documents produced by the occupant of the building concerned, directed that the documents be kept in safe custody of the Court. On 26-7-2003, an application was moved by the decree-holder submitting that he had received an offer for the purchase of the building in question, which was situate at 14, Bakshi Colony, Indore and praying that the said property may be sold by way of auction and the amount received be apportioned among the decree-holder and other partners.

7.This was objected to by the respondent No.1-judgment-debtor on the ground that the executing Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale o