MOJIB UDDIN CHOUDHURY Vs. FAZIL AHMED CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order, under challenge in the present revision, was passed, on 4.8.2005, in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/2003, which arose out of the Title Execution Case No. 17/1979, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, herein below material facts, which have given rise to the present revision, may, in brief, be described, thus :

(2.) I have heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the decree-holder opposite-party.

(3.) While considering the present revision, what is of paramount importance to note is that Order XXI deals with various facets of execution of decrees and orders. Order XXI does not come into play if a decree has already been executed, discharged or satisfied. Broadly speaking, the Code stands divided into two parts. While the sections, which appear in the Code, vest the Courts with jurisdiction to deal with such matters as are mentioned therein, the Rules, framed under various orders, lay down the procedure for exercise of such jurisdiction. Thus, the sections are substantive part of the Code and the Rules, framed under various orders, are procedural part of the Code. The substantive power is derived by a Civil Court from the various sections in the Code and not from the Rules framed under the orders. How a power, conferred on a Civil Court, or the jurisdiction, vested in the Civil Court, would be exercised, is a matter of procedure and it is the procedure, which the various Rules, framed under the orders, indicate.