JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: -

(a) “To quash and set aside further proceedings in Case No.3/10 of 2013 titled as Raj Laxmi Chemical Industries Vs. Pamwi Tissue Limited pending before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

(b) To quash and set aside the order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. as the same is wholly without jurisdiction.”

2. The issue involved in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is in a very narrow compass. Respondent before this Court filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner, principal sum in which involved was Rs.1,15,10,012.11. The suit stood decreed by the learned Court at Pune for principal amount alongwith interest @24%. For the purpose of execution of the said decree, the Decree Holder approached the Court at Pune and as the property was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court in issue at Nalagarh, execution petition was accordingly transferred under Sub-Section 3 of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, on 16.11.2019 passed the following order:-

“Case file taken up today for effective hearing as has been listed vide office order dated 14.10.2019.

No report as to issue warrant of auction has been made. Civil Ahlmad is warned and directed to be careful in future. Let, fresh warrant of auction be issued for sale of attached property of JD for realization of decretal amount with up to date interest in the following manner on old PF:-

3. Said order stands assailed by the Judgment Debtor before this Court with further prayer to quash the execution proceedings itself so entertained by the learned Court below.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that execution proceedings, which have been entertained by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, are void ab-initio, for the simple reason that in terms of statutory provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the said Court did not had the jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, neither it could have had entertained the execution petition nor ventured to execute the decree passed by the Court at Pune. On this count, the learned counsel for petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order as well as for quashing of the proceedings, which are so pending in the execution of the decree in issue before the executing Court at Nalagarh.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no illegality in the execution petition being entertained by the learned Court at Nalagarh nor the provisions of Sub-Section 3 of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibit the said Court from executing the decree in issue. Learned counsel has argued that the very opening words of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that the Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send the same for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction against the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court and as in the present case, the Judgment Debtor was carrying on its business at Nalagarh and property is situated there, therefore, execution petition was rightly sent to the Court at Nalagarh.

6. He has further argued that Sub-Section 3 of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure nowhere contains word “pecuniary”, therefore, the word “jurisdiction” ha