B. L. Loomba, J. - (1.) A short question of law arises in this writ petition with the consent of the parties learned counsel, I proceed to dispose of the same.
(2.) RESPONDENT Shri Navin Chandra Pandey along with two others filed claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. Their claim petition was allowed and direction was issued to quash the seniority list operating between the parties and requiring the U. P. Jal Nigam to publish the merit list of Assistant Engineers as determined at the selection and thereupon publish the combined seniority list of Assistant Engineers. On the basis of its judgment, the Tribunal issued certificate in respect of the relief granted. This certificate was issued under sab-section (7) of Section 5-B of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976. The party in whose favour such certificate is issued is entitled to apply to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for execution. The claimant after obtaining certificate from the Tribunal under the said provisions filed the same before the District Judge Lucknow. It is the undisputed position Civil Court of District Judge is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The District Judge, Lucknow instead of executing the order of the Tribunal passed orders to transfer the execution to the Court of 10th Additional District Judge. On the basis of the order of transfer, the 10th Additional District Judge proceeded to execute the order of the Tribunal. The petitioner-judgment debtor filed objection as to the competency and right of the Additional District Judge to proceed with the execution case. This objection was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 23-12-1989. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order has approached this Court seeking direction under Article 227 of the Constitution against the Additional District Judge not to proceed with the Execution case and to send back this case to District Judge, Lucknow. In effect, the challenge is to the order of the Additional District Judge dated 23-12-1989 on the ground that the Additional District Judge is not competent to deal with the matter because the Court competent to proceed with the execution under Section 5-B (7) of the said Act is the District Judge Lucknow. Sub-section (7) of Section 5-B of the Services Tribunal Act is reproduced below :- . 1 "(7) Where the Tribunal makes an order other than a declaration referred to in sub-section (6), in favour of any party and such order remains uncomplied with for a period of three months from the date of such order, the Tribunal may, on the application of the party in whose favour the order stands, issue a certificate for recovery of the amount awarded or, as the case may be, for any other relief granted by the Tribunal. Any party, in whose favour such certificate is issued, may apply to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the employee is for the time being serving, or, as the case may be, last served such employer, for execution of the order of the Tribunal and such Court shall there upon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for like relief passed by itself in a suit." District Judge is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and he has a right, indisputably only to receive the certificate issued by the Services Tribunal and execute it. Sub-section (7) of Section 5-B of the Act gives right to the District Judge to cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for like relief passed by itself in a suit; this is what is expressly provided in this subsection. The District Judge can have the certificate received from the Tribunal to be executed by another Court only when it is transferred to any such Court The power to transfer a suit or proceeding is given in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure it has been expressly provided that 'proceeding' includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order. The provisions of Section 5-B (7) of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976, read with Section 24 CPC clearly make out that the District Judge -has the power to have the certificate received from the Tribunal executed as if were decree passed by the Court of the District Judge itself and this can be done by transferring the, certificate to any Court subordinate to it. Further to notice, Courts of Additional Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; This is what is provided in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 24 CPC. In this way, the order*of the District Judge to transfer the certificate and the execution thereof the 10th Additional District Judge can be said to be well within the law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, bas argued that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure falls within Part I of the Code of Civil Procedure with broad heading "Suits in General" while provisions relating to execution of decrees and orders are contained in Sections 36 to 74' in Part II of the Code of Civil Procedure. Attention has also been drawn to the power of transfer of decrees u/Sec. 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this strength, it is contended that a specific provision contained in Section 39 falling in Part II of the Code of Civil Procedure should govern the matter and the provisions contained in Section 24 (3) requires to be disregarded and is inapplicable It is difficult to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The mere fact that a specific provision for transfer of decree is contained in Section 39 does not by itself take away the power conferred on the District Judge under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power given in Section 24 is general in nature and is not curtailed by the provisions contained in Section 39. True, that Section 39 is a provision appearing later in sequence, but the power to transfer a decree under Section 39 is conditioned by the provisions contained in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 39 CPC. This power can be exercised without issue of notice to the parties. As against this, Section 24 provides for application seeking transfer of matters and hearing of the parties as may desire to be heard. The power of transfer can be exercised under Section 24 by the District Judge as also by this Court of its own motion also without such notice. This is a general power broader in scope as compared to the provision contained in Section 39. It is difficult to a accept that the provision contained in clause (b) of Sub-section (3) provision contained in Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am* therefore, of the view that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. As is already mentioned also it is open to the District Judge to have a certificate received from the Tribunal to be executed from another Court as provided in sub-section (7) of Section 5-B of the services Tribunal Act. This by itself implies power to transfer the execution to another Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly argued that the petitioner has already executed the declaration contained in the certificate of the Services Tribunal. This aspect, I am afraid, is not open to be raised and considered in this writ petition.
(3.) FOR what is stated above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed..;