AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The civil revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor/defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated
20.12.2007 in E.P. No. 3350 of 2007 in O.S. No. 1310 of 2003 passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in ordering the issue
of precept by 19.02.2008.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/ Judgment Debtor/defendant urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in issuing
precept by 19.02.2008 is not correct in the eye of law inasmuch as the executing Court has no power to issue precept for attachment of movables
situated within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Mumbai and further that the trial Court has exceeded its authority in issuing precept for attaching
the movable property shown to be kept at City Civil Court, Mumbai and that the Executing Court viz., City Civil Court, Chennai has got the right
only to transmit the decree to City Civil Court, Mumbai and execution can only be done there and that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the
principles laid down in the decision in Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 2707 in proper perspective and
therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff/decree holder submits that the respondent/ plaintiff in E.P. No. 3350 of 2007 before
the Executing Court has only prayed for an issuance of precept u/s 46 of CPC to the City Civil Court at Mumbai for attachment of movables of
Judgment Debtor lying in Itel Industries Private Limited Registered Office: Bombay House, Home Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 and that
the trial Court has passed a well considered order in ordering precept by 19.02.2008 and the same need not be interfered by this Court sitting in
revision.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relies on the decision in Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW
2707 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has inter alia observed that in respect of decree for sale of property situated outside jurisdiction of
Court, the decree has to be transferred to Court having jurisdiction over the property and no option left with execution Court after 2002
amendment.
The gist of the argument of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor is that the the Executing Court viz., X Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has no power to issue precept for attachment of movables has prayed for in E.P. No. 3350 of 2007 by the
respondent/plaintiff.
It cannot be gainsaid that as a general rule the territorial jurisdiction is a pre-requisite factor to a Court of law executing a decree and neither the
Court which passes a decree, nor the Court to which it is sent for execution can execute it in respect of property lying outside its territorial
jurisdiction, in the considered opinion of this Court.
The main object of Section 46 of CPC viz., Precept is to enable the attachment of the property of Judgment Debtor situated within the
jurisdiction of another Court, in order to defer the defendant/Judgment Debtor from alienating or otherwise dealing with the property, to the
detriment of the Judgment Debtor till proper and appreciate proceedings are initiated. As a matter of fact, the Court to which a precept is issued
gets its authority from the precept and the Court has no power to do anything not authorised thereby, but it ought to be presumed to have inherent
powers to deal with all matters which may incidentally arise in connection with the proceedings for attachment.
To put it succinctly an order of precept is not an order transferring a decree for execution to the Court to which it is issued. Really speaking, this
Court points out that Section 46 of CPC concerns with execution of decrees and does not affect the Jurisdiction of a Court of law under Order 38
Rule 5 of CPC to attach before Judgment, properties lying outside the jurisdiction of the Court as per decision in Chimandas Methuram and
Others Vs. Manager Mahadevappa Firm and Others, . Viewed in this perspective, after going through the order passed by the trial Court in regard
to the issuance of precept by 19.02.2008, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the trial Court in regard to the issuance of precept
is perfectly a valid one in the eye of law and resultantly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.