SHRIRAM CHITS P LTD Vs. GUNDUMALI MANJULABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner obtained decree in OS No.840 of 2005 against the respondents for payment of money. The decree was passed by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kowur on 23.6.2007. The petitioner then presented E.P. (SR) No.4456 of 2009 to the Court at Kowur. In the meanwhile, with effect from 29.11.2008, the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem was constituted, for this reason Kowur Court returned the E.P., on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. E.P., was then presented to the Court at Jangareddigudem. The same being E.P. (SR) No.370 of 2009 was returned by the said Court on 30.9.2009, observing as under: Heard the learned Counsel his petitioners and perused the record. This execution petition filed by the General Power of Attorney holder rep. by its Divisional Manager on behalf of the D.Hr., Chits (P) Ltd., the petitioner filed promissory petition under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice permit him to file this Execution Petition on behalf Shriram Chits Private Ltd. The petitioner also filed another affidavit praying the Hon'ble Court to transmitting the decree to this Hon'ble Court along with non-satisfactory certificate. But -this Court has no jurisdiction to order the transmitting the decree as prayed by the petitioner. The petitioner also filed another affidavit and petition to attach the salaries of the J.Dr Nos.1 and 2. According to the decree copy filed by the D.Hr/Petitioner the decree in O.S. No.840/2005 was decreed by the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judges Court, Kowur on 23.6.2008. This Court was established on 29.11.2008 prior to formation of this Court the decree was passed and without transmitting the decree from the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kowur. This Court was no jurisdiction to number, this Execution Petition. Hence, this petition is returned to the petitioner to comply the office objections.

(2.) Though notice is served on respondents, none appears for them. In this civil revision petition, Counsel for petitioner relies on Section 37 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and a judgment of this Court in Pasala Suryachandra Rao v. Vatti Venkata Ranga Pardhasaradhi, 1999 (2) ALD 179 = 1999 (2) ALT 88 and submits that in view of the explanation to Section 37 of CPC, the Court which passed the decree and the Court to whose jurisdiction the area has been transferred, can entertain the E.P. After perusing the relevant provision and precedent, this Court is compelled to countenance the submission of Counsel for petitioner.

(3.) A plain reading of explanation leaves no doubt that the Court which passed the decree does not cease to have jurisdiction even the area within its territory has been transferred to another Court. Secondly, the Court then either existing or newly created to which earlier area has been transferred also has jurisdiction as if the same Court had passed the decree. To the same effect, it is the ratio of this Court in Pasala Suryachandra Rao's case (supra).