FIRM GANESHDAS BADRINARAIN Vs. AMULUK CHAND OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Assam Valley Districts, dated 21 June 1939, reversing an order of the Special Subordinate Judge of the same district made on 23 March 1989. The appellant obtained a money decree against the respondent in the Court of the Special Subordinate Judge on 19 March 1927. He applied for transfer of this decree for execution to the Presidency Small Cause Court, Calcutta, on 9 February 1939. On 10 February 1939, the Subordinate Judge issued the necessary certificate of non-satisfaction of decree to the Court of Small Causes, Calcutta, for execution and transferred the decree to that Court without giving any notice to the judgment-debtor. Thereafter the Small Cause Court arrested the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. On 23 March 1939, the judgment- debtor made an application before the Subordinate Judge, Assam Valley Districts, who made the order for transfer for recalling the said order. The learned Subordinate Judge refused this prayer of the judgment-debtor. The latter thereupon appealed to the District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and recalled the order of transfer made by the Subordinate Judge. Hence this appeal to this Court.

(2.) The first point urged by Mr. Das in support of this appeal is that the learned District Judge was wrong in recalling the order inasmuch as the order was good in law though it was made ex parte. The learned District Judge has found that the order of transfer was bad in law inasmuch as the decree was above Rs. 2000 and the Small Cause Court, Calcutta, has no power to execute decrees exceeding Rs. 2000. Mr. Das contention is that the view taken by the learned District Judge is wrong inasmuch as there is no limitation as regards the pecuniary jurisdiction in cases coming under Section 39, Clause (i), Civil P.C. His argument is that Clause (ii) of the said Section expressly refers to the jurisdiction of the Court, but Clause (i) does not mention anything about the competency of the Court. The opening words of Clause (i) of Section 39 are in these terms: The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court.

(3.) It was argued by Mr. Das that the expression "another Court" includes Court of any jurisdiction, viz. that of a Munsif or a Subordinate Judge and consequently a decree passed by a Subordinate Judge can be transferred for execution to the Court of a Munsif. I am unable to "accept this contention. Section 6 of the1 Code runs thus: Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.