R ^'Ff^/^ \''-:' i. W.P.NO. 2f)5^3 A-^-^ TRADERS PVT. LTD., A Company constituted and registered under Sl^.«S>" Indian Companies Act, Business place at ^"YT5.-*' 2 Industrial Estate Bhanpuri, Raipur A\<^**.' ~"? -^**'" ^iO r~< \ •<s' >^S€C5$'>"" (C'G')' y' 'TITirtNI :^1 No.12, Sector - A Zone B Maheshwar Industrial Area Bhuneshwar (Orissa). -A--i..;.^-> \d'Bc|»-yKllrt«,l>^l'<1<lc°,fiwdy — -^ .......^:f:.^°;..^?7a.^ *11*lc61^TT«P——•'••"•••'•—••——f .'. 1.: 3ii^?r9srft-<i* ?iaii3ii^?r*<ii* ail^iS q^p(^c|i^E|<g) ^t^OGT Shri Deepak Vaswani Heard. • The petitioner by.th Constitution, as he is aggne passed by learned V Addit No. 58/2003 (Tapadia Engir and Containers Pvt. Ltd.) b\ of fhe CPC for transfer Bhuwaneshwar (Orissa) for Learned counsel for t favour of the petitioner agair ofRs. 2,24,149/-. The petitic against the respondent be execution proceedings be Bhuvaeshwar (Orissa) as t judgment d^btor is situatei above application has b.een Learned counsel for tl failed to exercise the jurisdi| oftheCPCand the same is Code. 1 have heard learned <pi<iI»<ntii*inY^"lsl<3'<[uftd'< iliaif^ian'^?! counsel for the petitioner. e instant petition under Article 227 of the yed by the impugned order dated 10/01/2005 onal District Judge, Raipur in execution case eers & Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Konark Cyiinders which the application under Section 39 & 40 of decree to the competent Court a+ ixecution has been rejected. le petitioner submits that there is a decree in st the respondenfJudgment Debtor for a. sum ner initiated the above execution proceedings fore the Court below and prayed that the transferred to the competent Court at ie movable and immovable property of the i at Bhuwaneshwar (Orissa). Hov/ever, the ejected by the impugned order. ie petitioner submits that the Court below has :tion !awful!y vested in it under Section 39 (1) passed on misreadlng ofSection 39 (4) ofthe :ounsel for the petitioner. SP/FS/2005-20,000 \dTre|'<<|<<10«,yTTl'(1<KB, fqwi'M'^X HIHrit^TT^ ,u;^.^-..^.^./^ 3ii^?iwrRi'ii<h a2IT3II^?T*t|i<b ^i SP/FS/2D&5-20^00 / •-. .,; ^ ^ 7 ^,<^ 3IT^9Tt P(ijc|[jc|^) S^EaTtR^fScT SK^V -£- Section 39 (1) of the Court that had passed a d< another Court of compet.ent have sufficient property to Court's jurisdiction. Howeve section 4 of Sectibn 39 of th vested in it. In the aforesaid circi and the matter is remanded order afresh under Section 3 the petitioner. <i>l<<In<I1i iiinl'^f ls'<9>(Ritci'< ^3l)^T3II^?T ICode'describes the conditions on which the ^cree may, send the decree for execution to jurisdiction 'ffVne judgment debtor does not atisfy the decree within the local limits of the •i the learned trial Coyrt by misreading Sub- ^ Code has refused to exereise ths jurisdiction imstances, the impugned order is set aside back to the Court below to pass appropriate 9 (1) of the Gode after hearingthe counsel for _L ------ Sd/- DhteendraMishra Judge