AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chatterji, J.—This application in revision is directed against an order passed in an execution proceeding. The decree under execution was passed by a Small Cause Court. On the application of the decree-holder, it was transferred to another Court on its regular side. Execution was thereupon started in the latter Court. The judgment-debtor appeared and took the objection that the execution was barred by limitation. This objection was given effect to and the execution case was dismissed. Against this order of dismissal, the decree-holder has presented this application in revision.
Mr. B. Mahapatra on behalf of the opposite party takes a preliminary objection that the revision does not lie, because the order com. plained of is appealable. He refers to Section 42, Civil P.C. That section runs as follows:
The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of the decree shall be punishable by such Court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree. And its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself.
He further relies on the decision in Jaminibala Debi Vs. Karali Prasad Mukherjee, which is exactly in point. It was held there:
When however the decree has bean transferred to the ordinary Court to be executed as if it were a decree made by that Court, the orders, made in execution are appealable in the same way as orders made in execution of decrees passed by that Court.
In my opinion, the preliminary objection must prevail. Mr. L.K. Das Gupta for the petitioner on the authority of Tipan Prasad v. Secy. of State AIR 1935 Pat. 86 decided by Fazl Ali J. sitting alone, contends that though the order in question was appealable, the High Court may u/s 115 interfere in revision. But that decision did not lay down any such general rule. Upon the facts of that particular case the learned Judge entertained the application in revision. Besides, in the present case the application in revision was presented not u/s 115, Civil P.C., but u/s 25, Small Cause Court Act.
The application is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner, if advised, may file an appeal to the proper Court subject of course to any question of limitation that may be raised. There will be no order for costs.