SHREE LATHA AGENCIES REP BY ITS PARTNER K SUBRAMANIAN & ANOTHER Vs. RAMNATH & CO P LTD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR N VENKATESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil revision has been preferred by the petitioners/judgment -debtors challenging the order dated 30.07.2007 passed in E.A.No.3673 of 2007 in O.S.No.7448 of 2006 by the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, transmitting the decree passed by the Second Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.7448 of 2006.

(2.) MR .T.T.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Court below, ought not to have transmitted the decree to the Sub Court, Ambasamudram as contemplated under Section 3 of CPC. The learned counsel further contended that for transmitting the decree to some other court, the transmitting court should have found that the judgment -debtors must be carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court, to which the decree has to be transferred or they must be residents of the place to which the court is having jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the instant case, before transmitting the court below ought to have issued notice to the petitioners/judgment -debtors to consider the same. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the Court below. In support of the contention, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the following decisions;

(3.) IN Manmatha Pal Choudhury and Others vs. Sarada Prasad Nath and others reported in 1939 AIR Cal 651 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court while interpreting Section 39 of CPC 1908 has held that the discretion given under Section 39 must be judicially exercised. As per the decision, Section 39 indicates that the Court which passes the decree must apply its mind to the matter, when an application is made by the decree -holder seeking for transfer of the decree to another Court having jurisdiction for execution, and exercise its discretion vested in it in a judicial manner.