Territorial limits do not bar asset disclosure inquiries under Order 21 Rule 41 when execution targets property within jurisdiction.

Section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar an executing court from examining a judgment-debtor or its officers under Order 21, Rule 41 and directing disclosure of assets, even if those persons reside outside territorial jurisdiction. Such examination and affidavit-based disclosure are investigative steps, not execution of the decree itself, and are permissible where they are aimed at identifying property within jurisdiction for later execution. The territorial restriction applies only to execution against a person or property outside local limits, so the court remained competent to make the disclosure direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bar under section 39(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prevents the executing court from examining the judgment-debtor or its officers and directing disclosure of assets under Order 21, Rule 41 when the persons concerned reside outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 39(4) bars execution of a decree against any person or property outside the local limits of the court's jurisdiction. The examination of a judgment-debtor or its officers under Order 21, Rule 41(1), and a direction to file an affidavit of assets under Order 21, Rule 41(2), do not themselves amount to execution of the decree. They are only investigative steps to ascertain assets so that execution may later be pursued against property found within jurisdiction. Since the decree in question was against the company and the inquiry was directed to identify assets within jurisdiction, the territorial bar in section 39(4) did not apply.

Conclusion: The executing court was competent to examine the judgment-debtor's officers and require disclosure of assets, and the application to set aside that direction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An inquiry under Order 21, Rule 41 to ascertain a judgment-debtor's assets is only a step towards execution and is not execution itself; therefore, section 39(4) does not bar such examination merely because the judgment-debtor or its officers reside outside jurisdiction.

---