TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the court which passed the mortgage decree retained jurisdiction to execute it after a notification altered the territorial jurisdiction of the courts; (ii) whether the transferee court could execute the decree without transmission from the court which passed it.
Issue (i): whether the court which passed the mortgage decree retained jurisdiction to execute it after a notification altered the territorial jurisdiction of the courts
Analysis: The expression in Section 37(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, refers to a court that has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute the decree. A mere change in territorial boundaries by notification does not divest the court that passed the decree of its power to execute it, unless the notification itself transfers pending business. The notification under Sections 5 and 11 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873, was read as operating prospectively and as regulating future local jurisdiction, not as transferring existing execution business.
Conclusion: The court which passed the decree retained jurisdiction to execute it.
Issue (ii): whether the transferee court could execute the decree without transmission from the court which passed it
Analysis: Section 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be invoked merely because territorial jurisdiction has shifted. The second court does not automatically acquire execution power unless the decree has been transmitted under the Code. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the proper mechanism for transmission, and Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contemplates a formal transfer of work where required. On the language of the notification, no transfer of pending business could be implied.
Conclusion: The transferee court could not execute the decree without transmission from the court which passed it.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the order permitting execution by the transferee court was set aside, with restoration of the execution dismissal for want of transmission.
Ratio Decidendi: A notification changing territorial jurisdiction does not, by itself, transfer pending execution business or deprive the original court of jurisdiction to execute its decree; execution in another court requires the statutory mechanism of transmission.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
