IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4098 of 2001 Date of Decision: 08.09.2010 State Bank of Patiala ........Petitioner Versus Tarlochan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.03.2001, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, rejecting the execution application filed by the petitioner-decree holder for execution of the decree. In a suit filed by the petitioner-Bank, a decree came to be passed on 03.06.1988 by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh. The said decree was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ropar for execution on the basis of certificate of transfer of decree. The transferee Court, vide its order dated 30.11.1995 dismissed the execution petition on the statement of the parties that they are trying for compromise. It appears that the parties could not arrive at compromise, which prompted the decree holder-Bank to file the execution application No.23 dated 04.05.1998 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ropar, the transferee Court. On being put to notice, the judgment debtor made an application seeking dismissal of the second execution petition raising the plea of limitation for filing the second execution petition. It was contended that the second execution petition was filed beyond a period of 3 years and thus, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. Civil Revision No.4098 of 2001 -2- This contention prevailed and the Executing Court passed the impugned order dismissing the fresh execution petition holding it beyond limitation. None of the parties appeared to plead their case. I have perused the impugned order. The Executing Court has simply dismissed the execution petition having been filed allegedly beyond a period of three years without referring to any provisions of law, which inter alia prescribed limitation of three years for filing the second execution petition. However, one question definitely arises for consideration as to whether the second execution petition could be directly filed in the transferee Court without having been transferred on a certificate of transfer by the Court, which passed the decree. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with transfer of decree under the circumstances enumerated therein. Section 41 imposes an obligation upon the transferee Court to certify to the Court, which passed the decree, the fact of execution both in situation of successful execution of the decree or failure to execute. Section 42 deals with powers of the Court executing the transferred decree. Sub Section 1 of Section 42 empower the transferee Court to execute the decree in the same manner as if it is the Court passing the decree. Sub Section 2 of Section 42 further lays down the extent of powers of the Court executing the transferred decree. It even empowers the transferee Court to further transfer the decree to another Court for execution. Sub Section 4, however, imposes restrictions on the power of the transferee Court to execute the transferred decree. Under Clause (a) of sub Section 4, the transferee Court is prohibited to execute the decree at the instance of the transferee of the decree. Clause (b) of this sub Section is not relevant for the purposes of the present controversy. From the conjoint reading of Sections 39, 41 and 42, it appears Civil Revision No.4098 of 2001 -3- that the transferee Court is entitled to execute a decree passed by another Court and transferred to it only on the basis of certificate of transfer, issued by the Court, passing the decree and in that eventuality, it has all the trappings and powers of a Court, passing the decree. However, where the proceedings before the transferee Court terminate either on account of due execution of the decree or failure of the executing Court to execute the decree, it ceases to have jurisdiction to proceed again except where anything done by the executing Court is sought to be re-examined or re- called at the instance of any of the parties unless it has again been asked by the Court passing the decree. The entire scheme of these Sections of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the Court passing the decree is in fact the principal Court having the complete jurisdiction to execute the decree and even where it transfers the decree to another Court for execution on account of existence of any circumstance enumerated under Section 39 of the Code, it continues to have the complete control over the execution of the decree notwithstanding the same having been transferred to another Court for purposes of execution. On termination of the proceedings before the transferee Court, the Court ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application without the same having been transferred by the Court passing the decree. For these reasons, this revision petition fails and the order of dismissal of the execution petition is upheld though on different grounds. Dismissed. 08.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes