JORA RAM Vs. DHARAM PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appeal arising out of of execution proceedings. A money decree had been transferred from the Court of Sub-Judge, Jhunjhunu in Rajasthan to the Court of Subordinate Judge Narnaul for execution. After the decree was sent to the Narnaul Court for execution, the decree holder transferred his interest in the decree in favour of Dharam Paul. Dharam Paul filed an application for the execution of the decree. The point raised in this appeal is whether Dharam Paul can file an application in the Narnaul Court for the execution of the decree or whether he should have filed the petition first in the Court which passed the decree. There is no doubt that under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application has to be filed in the Court which passed the decree. But in the present case the judgment debtor, to whom notice was issued by the executing Court, appeared before the executing Court and on the first date of appearance expressly informed the Court that he had no objection to the transfer of the decree in the name of Dharam Paul. In view of the express statement made by the judgment debtor in the executing Court, we do not think that he can be permitted to object to the execution of the decree by the Narnaul Court. In (Kunwar) Jang Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India Ltd., 1928 AIR(PC) 162, it was held that failure of the decree-holder to get an order for substitution of parties from the Court which passed the decree, was a matter relating to procedure and was not a question of jurisdiction. Therefore, it was held that the party who had acquiesced in the executing Court exercising jurisdiction could not later on turn-round and challenge the legality of the execution proceedings. In the present cse, the judgment-debtor had expressly stated in the executing Court that he was not objecting to the transfer of the decree in favour of Dharam Paul. Therefore, he cannot now be allowed to object to the jurisdiction of the executing Court.

(2.) The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.