DOGIPATHI VENKATA BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. PURASAWALKAM PERMANENT FUND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 09.11.2006 passed in E.P. No. 3141 of 2005 on the file of the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S. No. 119 of 1994 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which was filed for ordering arrest of the petitioner herein/Judgment Debtor. The Suit in O.S. No. 119 of 1994 was originally filed by the plaintiff, by name, Tupili Sugunamma, for recovery of money. According to the revision petitioner herein, the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to pass such an order, in view of the fact that the decree in O.S. No. 119 of 1994, dated 02.03.1995, has not been passed by the Execution Court (IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai), but, it has been passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and no proper transmission of decree has taken place. He would further contend that the procedure as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 16 of C.P.C. has not been scrupulously followed and therefore, the order of the Execution Court is not correct.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder/Assignee has brought to the notice of this Court that the original decree was passed in favour of Tupili Sugunamma by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, and thereafter, an application in E.A. No. 121 of 2000 was filed by the respondent herein before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nellore and a transmission order was obtained, thereby, the decree obtained by Tuplili Sugunamma has been assigned in favour of the respondent herein and the decree has been transmitted to the City Civil Court, Chennai, and only on that basis, earlier, an Execution Petition was filed and subsequently, the present Execution Petition in E.P. No. 3141 of 2005 was filed and therefore, the present objection, which was made by the petitioner herein is devoid of merits. He would further contend that since, the Execution Court has granted further time to make the payment and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, he can always make the payment and contest the same and thus, the present Civil Revision Petition is not in accordance with law and the same is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard both sides. I have also perused the records carefully.