MAYANDI CHETTLAR Vs. A R SENTHILNATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision is filed assailing the orders of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, made in E.P.No.50 of 1979 in O.S.No.21 of 1965,on 29th October,1980.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The respondent in this revision filed O.S.No.21 of 1965 before the Sub-Court, Devakottai against the revision petitioner and others for the recovery of a sum of Rs.33,000 odd. An ex parte decree was passed on 30th April, 1966 against the petitioner and those who figured as defendants in the suit. l.A.No.315 of 1966 in O.S.No.21 of 1965 was filed by the petitioner and others to set aside the ex parte decree which petition was dismissed on 3rd October, 1966. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, civil miscellaneous appeal was filed before this Court and this Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal on condition that the defendants in the suit should pay a sum of Rs.200 by way of costs to the decree-holder within six weeks from that date. That order was not complied with. Hence, the ex parte decree passed in the suit, had become final. Thereafter E.A.No.183 of 1974 was filed by the decree-holder on 26th August, 1974 before the Sub-Court, Devakottai, seeking an order to transmit the decree for execution to the District Munsif's Court, Karur. That was ordered on 26th September, 1974. The papers were sent to District Munsif's Court, Karur. While so, the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in and by which, the decree pending before the District Munsif's Court, Karur, could not be executed for want of jurisdiction. O.P.No.126 of 1974 was filed by the decree-holder before the District Judge, Tiruchy and in l.A.No.228 of 1978 an order was passed by the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli on 30th January, 1979 to the following effect:

(3.) Before Sengottuvelan, J. it was contended by the two judgment-debtors that the transferee Court can entertain the execution petition only in pursuance of an order of the transferor Court and, since, there is no order of a transferor Court in this case to transmit the decree to the proper Court, the execution petition is not maintainable. Incidentally it was also contended by the said judgment-debtors that the decree is barred by limitation. While referring to Order 21, rules 5 and 6, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtors before Sengottuvelan, J. that the act of the District Munsif, Karur in handing over the papers to the decree-holder direct for being presented to the proper Court is contrary to law and also contrary to the provisions stipulated by Order 21, rules 5 and 6, C.P.C. Sengottuvelan, J. on this aspect came to the conclusion that the contentions of the judgment-debtors cannot be sustained and therefore, dismissed the aforesaid revision petitions filed by the petitioner.