KONTHAN KESAVAN Vs. VARKEY THOMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this court as he found that there is conflict of rulings on the point which governs the decision of the CRP. The 2nd defendant is the revision petitioner. The decree holder had obtained a decree for redemption of a mortgage in the Vaikom Munsiff's Court. On 23-5-1959 he filed an application in that court for execution of the decree and on 5-6-1959 that court passed an order for delivery. In pursuance to that order the property was delivered to the decree holder on 6-6-1959.

(2.) The petitioner alleged that he came to know of the order for delivery only on 10-8-1959 and prayed to review that order, and for redelivery of the property. The main ground for review was that at the time when the order for delivery was passed by the court, the property which was the subject matter of the suit had already been transferred to the territorial jurisdiction of the Shertalai Munsiff's Court and therefore the order for delivery and the delivery itself were without jurisdiction and void. The other grounds alleged need not be referred to as they are not necessary for the decision of this petition.

(3.) Therefore the only point for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom had ceased to have jurisdiction to pass the order for delivery and deliver the property, as the property had already been transferred to the territorial jurisdiction of the Shertalai Munsiff's Court, and whether the order for delivery and delivery itself were for that reason void and of no effect. The petitioner contended that under S.37 & 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, the only court which could order delivery of the property was the Shertalai Munsiff's Court as that was the court competent to execute the decree. S.37 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as follows:-