GOLOK CHANDRA BARUA Vs. DEV KANTA BARUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is from the order dated 21 -4 -1975 passed by the District Judge, Nowgong in Money Execution Case No. 2 of 1973. The appeal is by the judgment -debtor.

(2.) THE appellant filed an election petition, namely, Election Petition No. 3 of 1967, in this Court, challenging the election of the decree -holder. This Court set aside the election of the decree -holder by its judgment dated 4 -7 -1968. The decree -holder filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with costs against the judgment -debtor in both the Courts. Thus the judgment -debtor was liable to pay a total cost of Rs. 16,483.61p.

(3.) MR . N. M. Lahiri, learned Advocate -General, Meghalaya, appearing for the appellant, submits that the District Judge of Nowgong has no jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition and that the decree -holder ought have filed the application for execution of the order for costs in this Court. In support of his contention, he places strong reliance on Order XIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules. Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules is in the following terms: "The decree passed or order made by the Court in every appeal, and any order for costs in connection with the proceedings therein, shall be transmitted by the Registrar to the court or tribunal from which the appeal was brought, and steps for the enforcement of such decree or order shall be taken in that Court or tribunal in the way prescribed by law." Relying on the expression "the Court or tribunal from which the appeal was brought" and "that Court or tribunal" underlined above, Mr. Lahiri submits that "the Court" and "that Court" mean the High Court that decided the election case, and in the context, this High Court, and that the respondent ought to have filed the petition in this Court for enforcement of the order for costs.