- (1.) IN this revision preferred by the judgment debtors the only question pressed before me is that the ejectment decree passed by the Small Cause Court could not be transferred by it for execution to the Munsif s Court and that the latter had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The decree holder opposite party No. 1 was the landlord of the suit property while the judgment debtors applicants were tenants. In view of certain Uttar Pradesh amendments suits by landlords for ejectment are now cognizable by Small Cause Courts. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the suit itself is cognizable by Small Cause Court, therefore, the decree can also be executed by that court alone and not by Munsif s court.
(2.) RELEVANT portion of S. 7 C. P. C. reads as under: " The following provisions shall not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or under the Berar Small Cause Courts Law, 1905, or to courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the said Act or law, or to courts in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend exercising a corresponding jurisdiction, that is to say- (a) so much of the body of the Code as relates to- (i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes; (ii) the execution of decrees in such suits; (iii) the execution of decrees against immovable property;" Order L Rule I of C. P. C. reads as follows: " The provisions hereinafter specified shall not extend to courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887), or under the Small Cause Courts Law, 1905, or to Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a court of Small Causes under the said Act or Law, or to courts in any part of India to which the said Act does not extend exercising a corresponding jurisdiction, that is to say- (a) so much of this Schedule as relates to- (i) suits excepted from the cognizance of a court of Small Causes or the execution of decrees in such suits; (ii) the execution of decrees against immovable property or the interest of a partner in partnership property; (iii) the settlement of issues; and (b) the following rules and orders : Order II, rule I (frame of suit); Order X, rule 3 (record of examination of parties); Order XV, except so much of Rule 4 as provides for the pronouncement at once of judgment; Order XVIII, Rules 5 to 12 (evidence); Order XLI to XLV (appeals); Order XLVII, Rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 7; (review); Order LI." In Section 7(a)(ii) the expression " such suits" means suits excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes as mentioned under clause (i) thereof. Thus if the matter rested with clauses (i) and (ii) then it could no doubt be argued that inasmuch as suits for eviction of tenants from immovable property are no longer excepted from the cognizance of Small Cause Court therefore, the execution of decrees passed by it in such suits is also not barred. However the matter does not rest, there, Clause (iii) quoted above does not refer to " such suits" at all. It provides for an absolute bar of execution of a decree by a Small Cause Court against immoveable property irrespective of whether the decree is passed by that very court or not.
(3.) THE same is the position in respect of Order L Rule I. As would appear from clause (a)(i) of Order L Rule I quoted above, this clause corresponds to clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 7 (a), while the first part of clause (ii) of Order L Rule I corresponds to clause (iii) of Section 7 (a). In sub-clause (i) under Order L Rule I also, there is reference to " such suits" although in sub-clause (ii) these words have not been used.;