GOVIND Vs. LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question raised in this appeal is whether the application dated 15th July 1916 to the Poona Court of Small Causes was made to the proper Court. The Poona Court had previously transferred the decree to the Akola Court for execution, and the question is whether the Poona Court could subsequently entertain an application for transfer of the decree to a third Court. I remark that it appears to me clear that if a Court has Tower to send a decree to another Court, it has power to execute the decree itself; for if it has power to take steps towards the attachment of property outside its jurisdiction, it can surely attach property within its jurisdiction. The learned Additional District Judge, relying on Gorakhram v. Sivaiya [1900] 13 C.P.L.R. 169, a clear decision of this High Court, has answered the question in the affirmative.

(2.) THE authorities to the contrary are certainly formidable. In Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Veda [1912] 37 M.L.J. 236 it was held that in a case such as this the Court which passed the decree had no jurisdiction to entertain an execution application unless concurrent execution had been ordered or proceedings in the Court to which the decree was sent had been stayed for the purpose of executing the decree in the former Court. In Rangaswami Shetti v. Sheshappa A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 359 it was held that an application for transfer of a decree again to another Court must be made in the first instance to the Court to which the decree had already been transferred. I add that in Mitra's Limitation Act, 7th edn., p. 569, and in Rustomjee's Limitation Act, 3rd edn., p. 789, the view ?opposed to that taken in Gorakhram v. Sivaiya [1900] 13 C.P.L.R. 169 is taken to be the law.

(3.) I agree with the respectful observations of the lower appellate Court to the effect that the learned Bombay Judges who decided Rangaswami v. Sheshappa A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 359 appear to have thought that their Lordships' remarks were of more general application than they really are.