AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Though the decision in Maharaja of Bobili v. Narasaraju Peda [1912] 37 Mad. 231 was affirmed by Maharaja of Bobili v. Narasaraju Peda AIR 1916 P.C. 16 the grounds of the decisions, if carefully scrutinised, are different. The former decision seems to imply, unless a decree has been sent back by a transfer Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction the parent Court cannot execute the decree unless an order was passed permitting simultaneous executions. But this is not the ground of the decisions of the Judicial Committee. They held that an application for sale of the property attached by the transfer Court cannot be made to the parent Court and the application cannot be considered to be made to a proper Court. This is the interpretation made by the Punjab High Court in Firm Hira Lal Anant Ram v. Firm Sheru Mal Chaina Mal AIR 1926 Lah. 113 and we entirely agree with the observations in that judgment. We do not agree with the decision in Rangaswami v. Sheshappa AIR 1922 Bom. 359. We observe that to a certain extent, the Bombay High Court itself has taken a different view in B.N. Lang Vs. Jasvantlal Hathichand, . There it was held that the parent Court can withdraw execution and take other steps. In the present case we agree with the Subordinate Judge that the application of 13th July 1921, as a valid application and was a step-in-aid of execution. The appeal is dismissed with costs.