RAMCHANDRA S O TOTARAM MULTANI Vs. CHANDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions those need to be decided in the present matter are, as to whether the City Civil Judge, Bombay is subordinate to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division and, whether was the Civil Judge, Senior Division right in transferring a decree for execution to City Civil Court, Bombay under section 39 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

(2.) IN nutshell, the facts of the case can be narrated as under :---The present petitioner-Ramchandra, filed Special Civil Suit No. 54/1992 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, naturally against the respondent-Chander Sharma. The learned Civil Judge, Senior, Division, Ahmednagar, who dealt with the matter, by his Judgement and order dated 5th December 1996 decreed the suit and necessary decree was drawn. To get the said decree executed, Special Darkhast No. 61/97 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner-decree holder. The total amount due on the date of the execution petition was Rs. 17,91,154/ -. It would be necessary to mention at this stage only that during the pendency of the suit, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, had already passed an order of attachment before judgment of the movable property of the present judgment-debtor. The property is in the nature of positive and negative prints of two films, i. e. movies, the names of which are, "ghar Ki Mahabharat" and "meri Janeman". This attachment before judgment was naturally by deputing a Special Bailiff from Ahmednagar Court itself and the said attachment was ordered to be continued by necessary orders passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court, from time to time as is clear from Annexure A page 10 of the petition.

(3.) THE petitioner in the above-said Special Darkhast No. 61/97 did request the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar to direct further attachment of the said prints under Order 21, Rule 43 of the Civil Procedure Code who, in turn, issued necessary warrant addressed to the City Civil Court, Bombay to attach the said films. The petitioner took the warrant to City Civil Court, Bombay and prayed for Special Bailiff. However it is the grievance of the petitioner that no such Special Bailiff was provided by the City Civil Court, Bombay and hence action could not be taken; on the other hand, the said warrant was returned by the Registrar of the City Civil Court, Bombay unexecuted.