SULTAN ABDUL WAHEED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the judgment debtor. THE respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 97 of 1968 dated December 31, 1973 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Visakhapatnam. THEreafter, an application was filed for transmission of the decree for execution and the IVth Addl. Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad rceived the decree on February 18,1983. THE respondant filed the E.P. (S.R. 1407/83) on August 19, 1983. By that date, one day had intervened for filing that application. THE petitioner raised the objection that the application cannot be executed since the lower court has no jurisdiction after the expiry of six months from the date of transmission by operation of Rule 208 (2). Civil Rules of practice. THE Court below applied Sec. 148 C.P.C. and condoned the delay. As against that order, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) SRI Lohita, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Lower Court is devoid of jurisdiction to apply section 148 C.P.C. Section 148 comes into operation only when there is time prescribed by the Court below for performance arid the Act has not been done in the prescribed manner within the time allowed, then the court has discretion to enlarge the prescribed period from time to time. That question does not arise in this case I find force in the contention. SRI SRIramulu, learned standing counsel for the Central Government has contended that the Court has got inherent power to extend from time to time. I am unable to accede to the contention, ChapterXVI of the Civil Rules of Practice Postulates proceedings in execution. Rule 206 envisages transmission of decree for execution to the Court having jurisdiction to execute the decree. Section 208 engrafts the procedure to be followed by the court to which the decree has been transmitted for execution. Rule 238 (1) says that the Court of which a decree is sent for execution shall certify to the court which sent the decree, the fact of execution of such decree specifying the nature and extent of satisfaction or where the former court fails to execute the decree the circumstances attending such failure. This clause postulates the filing of execution petition in the transmitted court. Rule 208 (2) relevant for the purpose of this case, enjoins thus: