IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2530 OF 2010 DATED:08.09.2010 Between: Palakurthy Kumaraswamy … Petitioner And Thoutam Yakaiah … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2530 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioner is defendant in the suit in O.S. No.760 of 2005, which was decreed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The said suit was filed for recovery of money. Subsequently, the decree was transferred for execution to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet. At that time, when the E.P. was pending execution, the petitioner herein, who is defendant in the suit, has filed applications to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the delay, and also filed I.A. No.881 of 2010 before the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, to stay the operation of the ex parte decree passed by the Court on 3.6.2009. On the office objection, the matter was called on Bench and the Court below by the impugned order returned the papers for presentation before proper Court on the ground that only the Court to which the decree has been sent for execution is having the power to entertain such application but not the Court which has passed the decree. The application – I.A. No.881 of 2010 was filed under Order 21 Rule 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Said provision stipulates that the Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for reasonable time, to enable the judgment debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by such Court of first instance or Appellate Court if execution had been issued thereby, or if application for execution had been made thereto. From a reading of the above said provision, it is amply clear that the Court to which decree has been sent for execution is empowered to stay the execution for a reasonable time, but that does not divest the jurisdiction of the principal Court which has passed the decree. The reasoning of the Court below in ordering return of the application is contrary to the plain language of Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC itself. Merely because a decree is transferred to some other Court for execution, the principal Court will not loose the jurisdiction and if the same is interpreted in that manner, it runs contrary to the plain language used in Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dt.11-6-2010 in I.A. No.881 of 2010 in O.S.No.760 of 2005 is set aside, with a further direction to the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, to entertain the said application, as if it is having jurisdiction to consider it, and dispose of the same on merits. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 08.09.2010 bnr