HAKIM MOHAMMED ALI Vs. BHANWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated November 23, 1979 passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, in execution case No. 8/1977, whereby the judgment-debtor petitioner's objection, regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to execute the decree, was rejected.

(2.) The suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed by the trial Court on January 13, 1969 and the said decree was affirmed in the first appeal and second appeal on May 23, 1974 and April 29, 1975 respectively and a compromise was arrived at between the parties in the Supreme Court and a decree in pursuance of compromise was passed on November 17, 1976. Thereafter, the decree-holder submitted an application for execution in the Court of Munsif, City Jodhpur on March 18, 1977. In the execution application, the judgment-debtor submitted his objections under Section 47, C. P. C. read with Section 151 C. P. C. on April 5, 1977. The execution application as well as the objection petition No. 41/1977 were transferred from the Court of Munsiff to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur by the order of District Judge, Jodhpur, No. 473 dated October 5, 1977. Thereafter again both the cases were transferred by the District Judge to the Court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur by his order No. 521 dated November 8, 1977. The learned Additional Munsiff, by his order dated January 31, 1978 dismissed the transferred objection-petition on September 7, 1978. The judgment-debtor further submitted in execution objection purporting to be in reply to the notice under Order 21, Rule 22, C. P. C. One of the objections raised was that the Court to which the execution application has been transferred by the District Judge, has no jurisdiction to execute the decree as that Court has neither passed the decree nor that Court is the Court to which the decree is sent for execution by the Court which has passed the decree. The learned Additional Munsiff after hearing both the parties decided the objection against the judgment-debtor by the impugned order. Aggrieved against that order, the judgment-debtor has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot learned counsel for the petitioner judgment- debtor and Mr. G.M. Mehta learned counsel for the non-petitioner Decree- holder.