RAJENDRA PRASAD BOSE Vs. J R BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree -holder against an order dated 24 -9 -T987 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in Execution Case No. 52 of 1987 dropping the Execution Case holding the same as not maintainable and directing the decree -holder to take certificate of non -satisfaction of the decree to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Balasore, within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, for execution of the decree.

(2.) A preliminary decree for partition of property located in the districts of Cuttack, Puri and Balasore was passed on 19 -2 -1955 by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, in Title Suit No. 64 of 1949. Pursuant to a partial final decree passed on 27 -8 -1963 in respect of the residential houses at Cuttack and Puri possession was taken in Execution Case No. 10 of 1963. Another partial final decree for mesne profits was passed on 11 -7 -1973 and in Execution Case No. 80 of 1984 properties located in the districts of Cuttack, Puri and Balasore were attached. Another partial final decree was passed on 28 -7 -1981 in respect of the remaining properties situate in the districts of Cuttack and Balasore. Execution Case No. 101 of 1986 was dropped as the properties were situate at Balasore. Execution Case No. 52 of 1987 was filed on 14 -5 -1987 and the impugned order dropping the execution case as not maintainable and directing the decree -holder to take certificate of non -satisfaction of the decree to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bafasore, where the property is situate, for execution of the decree was passed. Aggrieved by the -said order, the decree -holder has filed this revision.

(3.) SHRI R. K. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the opposite parties, has on the other hand submitted that the Court which passed the decree continues to have jurisdiction to execute the decree but may for convenience and by way of expediency transfor the decree to another subordinate Court within whose jurisdiction the property is located for execution and simultaneous execution is not prohibited under law and having regard to the suo mow jurisdiction vested in Court by Sub -section (2) of Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application by the decree -holder is not essential.