(1.) The petitioner is decree holder. He filed the suit in O.S.No.386 of 1991 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankari against the defendants for recovery of money on 5.3.1991. The said Court passed decree in favour of this petitioner. Afterwards Sankari Sub-Court was bifurcated and a part of territorial jurisdiction was vested with Sub-Court, Namakkal. In the said Court, this petitioner filed R.E.P.No.241 of 2004 for sale of the properties belonging to the respondents. Subsequently, the territorial jurisdiction came under the Sub-Court, Tiruchengode, where the said Execution Petition was transmitted and is pending in the said Court in R.E.P.No.21 of 2008. Before the Executing Court viz., the Sub-Court, Tiruchengode, the respondents took a plea that without the decree being transferred or transmitted by the original Court viz., the Sub-Court, Sankari, which passed the decree, no execution proceedings could be taken in Tiruchengode Sub-Court. After hearing both sides, learned Sub-Judge, Tiruchengode, has dismissed the execution petition accepting the contentions of these respondents. Hence this petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P. Valliappan would submit that even though the earlier position was that without the decree being transmitted to the Executing Court, it cannot execute the decree in spite of the territorial jurisdiction vested with the original Court got bifurcated and presently by introduction of Explanation to section 37 of C.P.C., there is no necessity to get the decree transferred from the original Court to the latter court and even without such transfer the decree could be executed.
(3.) Conversely, Mrs.P.T. Asha, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that as per the provisions in Sec. 37 and 39 of C.P.C., the decree should have been transferred from Sankari Sub-Court to Tiruchengode Sub-Court for execution and in the absence of such transfer the execution petition could not be maintained and that the impugned Order need not be interfered with.