Execution jurisdiction follows the decree-passing court, and administrative distribution cannot divest that authority.

Jurisdiction of a Civil Court under the Bengal and N.-W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act was treated as depending on notification fixing local limits, while the District Judge's power under Section 13(2) was limited to administrative distribution of civil business subject to statutory limits and High Court orders. Because the decree had been passed by the Second Subordinate Judge, the subsequent execution application had to be presented to that same officer. Administrative redistribution of work could not remove the court's authority to deal with execution of its own decree, so the jurisdictional objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Second Subordinate Judge retained jurisdiction to entertain and grant the decree-holder's application for attachment and sale of property after an administrative distribution of civil business and an asserted division of parganas within the district.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of a Civil Court under Section 13(1) of the Bengal and N.-W.P. and Assam Civil Courts Act was held to be fixed by notification altering local limits, while Section 13(2) empowered the District Judge only to distribute civil business among Subordinate Judges subject to the statutory limits and any general or special orders of the High Court. Since the decree itself had been made by the Second Subordinate Judge, the further application for execution of that decree had to be made to the same officer. The administrative allocation of business could not divest the court which passed the decree of authority to act upon it.

Conclusion: The Second Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the execution application, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

---