LAWS(MAD)-1997-12-158

SOMASUNDARAM Vs. D. THANGARAJ

Decided On December 18, 1997
SOMASUNDARAM Appellant
V/S
D. Thangaraj Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the judgment -debtor. They are preferred against the order passed by the Sub -Court, Trichy in E.P. No. 661 of 1984 in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and on a memo filed by the judgment -debtor. It is submitted that the decree was passed by the Sub -Court, Trichy in O.S. No. 192 of 1974. It is seen from the records that after the constitution of the Sub -Court at Karur the execution proceedings were commenced in the said Court. The Sub -Court, Karur, conducted the sale. After the sale, it appears, an application to set aside the sale was filed under Order 21 Rule 91 C.P.C. As there was some complaint against the Subordinate Judge, Karur the execution proceedings were transferred to the Sub -Court, Trichy and the Sub -Court, dismissed the application under Order 21, Rule 91, C.P.C, against which a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed and thereafter the matter was taken to the High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeal. After dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal the High Court has made an observation at the end of the judgment dated 16.7.1996 in the following terms:

(2.) The main contention urged by the learned senior counsel Mr. S.V. Jayaraman for the petitioner is that the present Court which is having jurisdiction over the property is the Sub -Court, Kulithalai because the properties have been admittedly situate in Manapparai which has come under the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub -Court, Kulithalai. Therefore, according to him, the Sub - Court, Kulithalai alone will have jurisdiction. He also relies upon Ss. 38 and 39, C.P.C. According to him, as per Sec. 39 C.P.C., the Court which passed the decree may on the application of the decree holder send it for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction. According to him, 'competent Court' is defined under sub -clause (3) of Sec. 39. It is stated that the competent Court will be a Court which will have jurisdiction to try the suit at the time of making the application for transfer. According to learned counsel, at the time of the transfer the Court which had jurisdiction was Sub - Court, Kulithalai since it had jurisdiction from 12.7.1995. But, we do not know when it was transferred. Learned counsel for the respondent however contends that the jurisdiction does not mean territorial jurisdiction but also monetary jurisdiction. He cited a decision in P.M. Unni v/s. M. J. Nadar, (AIR 1973 Madras 2) wherein it is observed as under: