MUHAMMAD KUNHI Vs. ANDRADE AND LOBO
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANDRADE AND LOBO
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) In this second appeal by the second respondent in the execution petition, the chief question arising for consideration is whether the court to which the decree was sent for execution has jurisdiction to execute the decree. It was contended for the appellant that it has no jurisdiction, because it failed to certify non satisfaction of the decree to the court which passed the decree under S.41 of the Civil Procedure Code; but such failure is only an irregularity and cannot deprive the transferee court of its jurisdiction to execute the decree. This view has been held in more than one decided case; see Aftab Ahamd v. The Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. AIR 1960 Allahabad 558, Giridhari Lal v. Tkakurdas AIR 1964 Orissa 170 & Nagi Reddi Seetha Rami Reddi v. Thikkavarapu Kotamma AIR 1947 Mad. 431 . I agree with the decision of the lower appellate court on this point.
(2.) The second contention that the first respondent's legal representatives have not been impleaded, cannot affect the maintainability of the execution proceedings against the appellant, the decree against him being a joint and several decree.
(3.) It follows as a result, that the second appeal has to be dismissed; it is dismissed accordingly with costs. The execution court will in due course determine the point of limitation and the objection as to the correctness of the amount realisable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.