OM PRAKASH Vs. HARGOVIND RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is judgement-debtor's revi-sion directed against the order passed by learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Nohar in civil execution case No. 1/90 on 15-2-92 whereby his objection regarding jurisdiction has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner decree-holder obtained a decree against the firm M/s. Nardurga Trading Co. and its four partners on 9-12-86 from the Court of Addl. Dist. Judge, Nohar of Rs. 1,96,264.00. The decree-holder moved an application for execution of the decree against one of the judgement-debtors Ramesh-warlal, a partner of the firm. On an appli-cation by the judgement-debtor u/S. 24, C.P.C., the execution case No. 10/88 was transferred from A.D.J. Court, Nohar to Addl. Dist. Judge Court No.2, Hanuman-garh vide order dt. 11-8-88. The property of judgement-debtor No. 2 Rameshwarlal was attached in the execution proceedings but the parties have entered into a compromise and after realising Rs. 30,000.00 from the judgement-debtor No. 2 Rameshwarlal, the decree-holder got the execution petition dismissed on 17-11-89. The decree-holder moved an ap-plication against the present-petitioner before the executing Court for realising the remain-ing decretal amount. The petitioner raised an objection on 20-7-91 that the executing Court at Nohar ceased to have jurisdiction as execution proceedings had earlier been trans-ferred from the Court of Addl. Dist. Judge, Nohar to Addl. Dist. Judge, Hanumangarh, and prayed for dismissal of the application. The decree-holder filed a reply on 3-8-91 stating that the first execution application was dismissed as being partly satisfied against the judgement-debtor No. 2 Rameshwarlal only and not against the petitioner, as such it is maintainable before the executing Court being a fresh application. The learned trial Court rejected this objection of jurisdiction on 18-2-92. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Mr. R. K. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain application as case has been transferred and thus executing Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity. He has further submitted that the Court of Nohar has no jurisdiction to execute the same till the certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree had been received by the executing Court.