CRP/5018/2009 of M/s. Shriram Chits Private Limited Vs Smt. Gundumali Manjulabai on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

The petitioner obtained decree in O.S.No.840 of 2005 against therespondents for payment of money. The decree was passed by the Court ofPrincipal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur on 23.06.2007. The petitioner thenpresented E.P. (SR) No.4456 of 2009 to the Court at Kovvur. In themeanwhile, with effect from 29.11.2008, the Court of Junior Civil Judge,Jangareddigudem was constituted, for this reason Kovvur Court returnedthe E.P., on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. E.P., was then presentedto the Court at Jangareddigudem. The same being E.P. (SR) No.370 of2009 was returned by the said Court on 30.09.2009, observing as under.

Heard the learned counsel his petitioners and perused therecord. This execution petition filed by the General Power ofAttorney holder rep. by its Divisional Manager on behalf of theD.Hr., Chits (P) Ltd., the petitioner filed promissory petition underRule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice permit him to file this ExecutionPetition on behalf Shriram Chits Private Ltd.

The petitioner also filed another affidavit praying the Hon’bleCourt to transmitting the decree to this Hon’ble Court along withnon-satisfactory certificate. But this Court has no jurisdiction toorder the transmitting the decree as prayed by the petitioner. Thepetitioner also filed another affidavit and petition to attach thesalaries of the J.Dr No.1 and 2. According to the decree copy filedby the D.Hr/Petitioner the decree in O.S.No.840/2005 was decreedby the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judges Court, Kovvur on23.06.2008. This Court was established on 29.11.2008 prior toformation of this Court the decree was passed and withouttransmitting the decree from the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kovvur. This Court was no jurisdiction to number,this Execution Petition. Hence, this petition is returned to thepetitioner to comply the office objections.

Though notice is served on respondents, none appears for them. Inthis civil revision petition, counsel for petitioner relies on Section 37 of Codeof Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and a Judgment of this Court in Pasala Suryachandra Rao v Vatti Venkata Ranga Pardhasaradhi[[1]]andsubmits that in view of the explanation to Section 37 of CPC, the Courtwhich passed the decree and the Court to whose jurisdiction the area hasbeen transferred, can entertain the E.P. After perusing the relevant provisionand precedent, this Court is compelled to countenance the submission ofcounsel for petitioner.

37. Definition of Court which passed a decree.- Theexpression “Court which passed a decree”, or words to that effect,shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there isanything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include,- (a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in theexercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and (b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist orto have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit whereinthe decree was passed was instituted at the time of making theapplication for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdictionto try such suit.

Explanation.- The Court of first instance does not ceaseto have jurisdiction to execute a decree merely on the groundthat after the institution of the suit wherein the decree waspassed or after the passing of the decree, any area has beentransferred from the jurisdiction of that Court to thejurisdiction of any other Court; but, in every such case, suchother Court shall also have jurisdiction to execute the decree,if at the time of making the application for execution of thedecree it would have jurisdiction to try the said suit.

(emphasis supplied)

A plain reading of explanation leaves no doubt that the Court whichpassed the decree does not cease to have jurisdiction even the area withinits territory has been transferred to another Court. Secondly, the Court theneither existing or newly created to which earlier area has been transferredalso has jurisdiction as if the same Court had passed the decree. To thesame effect, it is the ratio of this Court in Pasala Suryachandra Rao(supra).

In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the Court ofJunior Civil Judge, Jangareddigudem is directed to register the E.P. (SR)No.370 of 2009 and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

31.12.2009pln

[1]1999 (2) ALT 88

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)