NANAK CHAND AND ANR. Vs. NANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revision petitions Nos. 85 -D, 86 -D and 87 -D, of 1960. Late Dal Chand deceased filed three suits for recovery of different amounts from the three different Respondents before the Gram Panchayat, Asaoti, under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 4 of 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act). During the pendency of the actions Dal Chand died. His minor sons, Nanak Chand and Hari Chand, Petitioners before me, were brought on record as the legal representatives of the original Plaintiff. All the three claims were ultimately decreed in their favour. The decrees were transferred by the Gram Panchayat to the Sub -Judge, Palwal, for execution under Section 64 of the Punjab Act. Not having been able to obtain full satisfaction of the decrees in the Palwal Court the Petitioners applied for transfer certificates being issued to the Court of Small Causes at Delhi. The applications were granted by the Palwal Court. The Petitioner -decree -holders then set the process of the Small Cause Court of Delhi in motion for execution of the decrees. At that stage objections to the excitability of the three decrees were raised by the judgment debtor -Respondents. We are concerned with only two out of those objections. The first was that the Small Cause Court of Delhi could not execute the decree as the certificate issued by the Palwal Court was wholly without jurisdiction. The second objection was that the Panchayat had no jurisdiction to decree the claims of the Petitioners who were minors as Section 55(d) of the Punjab Act deprived the Gram Panchayat of inherent jurisdiction to decide any suit by or against a minor. But its judgment, dated 24th October, 1959, Shri Diali Ram Puri, Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, gave way to both the above -said objections and dismissed all the three execution petitions. Not satisfied with the said order the decree -holders have come up to this Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code.

(2.) IT is firstly contended by Mr. P.C. Khanna, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Court below was in error when it held that the Palwal Court had no jurisdiction to transfer the decree for execution to any other competent Court. He says that power to do so is implicit in the authority vested in the Palwal Court by Section 64(3) of the Punjab Act. Section 64 reads as follows:

(3.) MR . Khanna contends that the phraseology of the first sentence of Section 42 of the Code is materially different from the phraseology of the last part of Sub -section (3) of Section 64 of the Punjab Act inasmuch as Section 24 refers to the powers to execute the decree but Section 64(3) does not use the word 'power'. I think, the distinction sought to be drawn between the relevant parts of the two provisions is wholly non -existent in spirit. The meaning and effect of the two provisions is the same. The power to transfer a decree and to send it for execution to another Court is given by Section 39(1) of the Code only to the Court which passed the decree and to no other Court. Section 64(3) of the Punjab Act is equivalent to a combination of Sections 38, 39 and the first part of Section 42 of the Code. The middle portion of Sub -section (3) of Section 64 of the Punjab Act confers power on the Panchayat alone to forward its decree to any civil or revenue Court having jurisdiction for execution. No such power is conferred on the transferee Court. In the absence of an express statutory provision for that purpose no Court is authorised to send a decree for execution to another Court. As stated above, the Palwal Court could not derive such power from any statutory provision.