MADANLAL Vs. BANK OF DEWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of execution proceedings of a money decree for Rs. 9460 -15 -3 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Rajgarh, in favour of the Bank of Dewas Ltd. and against the appellant. The decree was transferred by the Rajgarh Court to the Court of City Civil Judge, First Class, Indore, for execution. The Bank of Dewas Ltd, sought to realise under the decree Rs. 1190 1 -11 -6 from the appellant. The judgment -debtor took the objection that as this amount exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Civil Judge, First Class, Indore, it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of execution. This objection was rejected.

(2.) THE point raised in this appeal is covered by a Division Bench decision of this court in Hiralal vs. Ratanlal -, 1954 N.L.J. 241 (Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 201 of 1953). In that case, following an earlier decision of this court in Nilkanthrao vs. Krishnarao (1940 N.L.J. 244), it has been held that where a suit was within the jurisdiction of the court but the decree exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction, the transferee Court can execute the decree. In Nilkantharao's case it was held that the court executing the decree must be of a grade competent to entertain the suit itself. The words "of competant jurisdiction" in S. 39 C.P.C. mean of jurisdiction pecuniarily competent to try the suit in accordance with the provisions relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts and territorially competent to deal with the execution application in accordance with the rules relating to the execution of the decree. In this case it is not disputed that the Court of Civil Judge, Indore, would have had jurisdiction to try the suit, in which the decree had been passed, if it bad been filed in that Court. Mr. Waghmare, learned counsel for the appellant, pointed out to us that the decision of this court in Hiralal vs. Ratanlal did not consider the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shantilal vs. Mt. Jamni Kuar ( : A.I.R. 1940 All 331) taking a contrary view. This by itself does not appear to us a sufficient ground for disagreeing with the view taken in the case of Hiralal vs. Ratanlal and for referring this case to a larger Bench for determination.

(3.) I agree.