- (1.) The instant revision application has been filed by the revisionist, who is the judgment-debtor, against the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 11/74/2013 by which the objection of the revisionist (Application No.3 Ga), under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been rejected.
(2.) The facts relevant for deciding this case are that the plaintiff-respondent/ decree-holder instituted a suit No. 512 of 2008 against the revisionist, which was decreed ex parte, on 23.08.2010, by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Central-17, Delhi for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,28,005/-. As the judgment-debtor / revisionist was outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, in exercise of power under section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the decree was sent for execution to the District Court, Kanpur Nagar, as the revisionist resided within its jurisdiction, which gave rise to Execution Case No.101 of 2011. When the notice of the aforesaid execution case was served on the revisionist, he applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree which application, according to the revisionist, is pending before the concerned court at Delhi. In the meantime, the judgment-debtor filed objection, under section 47 C.P.C., before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar claiming, inter alia, that the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) alone has jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, inasmuch as, the said Court alone, in its ordinary jurisdiction, is the court competent to try such a suit and not the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar which, in its ordinary jurisdiction, is not a court of original jurisdiction to try a suit of the nature whose decree was under execution. The aforesaid objection of the revisionist did not find favour with the court below and was rejected by the impugned order.
(3.) Assailing the order of the court below, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, submitted that under section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court which passed a decree may, on an application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction. It has been submitted that the expression "competent jurisdiction" is of significance, which means that the Court to which the decree has been transferred must be competent to try the suit. It has been submitted that as the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge is not a Court which, in its ordinary jurisdiction, can entertain a suit, therefore, the Court of competent jurisdiction, with respect to the valuation of the suit concerned, would be the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and, as such, the Court of Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of the decree. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on three decisions namely, Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava & Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 1717; Prem Raj alias Prem Singh v. IIIrd Addl. Dist. Judge, and others, 1992 AIR(All) 332; and Manganese Ore (India) Ltd., Nagpur, v. M/s. Mangilal Rungta, Calcutta, 1981 AIR(Del) 114.;