- (1.) THE petitioner is the judgment debtor. THE respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 97 of 1968 dated December 31, 1973 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge Visakhapatnam. THEreafter, an application was filed for transmission of the decree for execution and the IVth Addl. Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad rceived the decree on February 18,1983. THE respondant filed the E.P. (S.R. 1407/83) on August 19, 1983. By that date, one day had intervened for filing that application. THE petitioner raised the objection that the application cannot be executed since the lower court has no jurisdiction after the expiry of six months from the date of transmission by operation of Rule 208 (2). Civil Rules of practice. THE Court below applied Sec. 148 C.P.C. and condoned the delay. As against that order, the present revision has been filed.
(2.) SRI Lohita, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Lower Court is devoid of jurisdiction to apply section 148 C.P.C. Section 148 comes into operation only when there is time prescribed by the Court below for performance arid the Act has not been done in the prescribed manner within the time allowed, then the court has discretion to enlarge the prescribed period from time to time. That question does not arise in this case I find force in the contention. SRI SRIramulu, learned standing counsel for the Central Government has contended that the Court has got inherent power to extend from time to time. I am unable to accede to the contention, ChapterXVI of the Civil Rules of Practice Postulates proceedings in execution. Rule 206 envisages transmission of decree for execution to the Court having jurisdiction to execute the decree. Section 208 engrafts the procedure to be followed by the court to which the decree has been transmitted for execution. Rule 238 (1) says that the Court of which a decree is sent for execution shall certify to the court which sent the decree, the fact of execution of such decree specifying the nature and extent of satisfaction or where the former court fails to execute the decree the circumstances attending such failure. This clause postulates the filing of execution petition in the transmitted court. Rule 208 (2) relevant for the purpose of this case, enjoins thus: "If the decree-holder, does not, within six months from the date of receipt of the decree on such transfer, apply for execution thereof, the court to which the decree has been sent shall certify the fact that no application for execution has been made to the court which passed . the decree and shall return the decree to that Court". A reading of this Rule would manifest filing of the application within six months from the date of receipt of the decree to the Court to which the decree was transmitted for execution and reporting to the original court for non-filing the application immediately on expiry of six months are couched in mandatory language. Therefore, it is mandatory that the decree holder who intends to have the decree executed in the Court to which the decree was transmitted for execution to lay execution, within six months and if it is not filed, it is mandatory for the executing Court to return the decree to the original Court. Under these circumstances, the Court below is deviod of jurisdiction either to enlarge the time under Section 148 C.P.C. or to condone the delay under Rule 208 (2) of the Civil Rules of Practice. There is no express provision made jn the rules for condonation of such delay. Under these circumstances, the only conclusion that could be reached is that the order passed by the Court below is without jurisdiction. It is accordingly set aside. It is open to the respondent to file fresh application in the original court and if the decree is transmitted the executing court will dispose of the application according to law. 3. The C.R.P. is accordingly allowed. No costs.;