Lakshmi Narain, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal on behalf of The Associated Bank of Tripura Ltd. decree -holder in Execution case No. 2 of 1951 of the Sub -Judge's Court against that Court's order dated 28 -3 -52 by which the objection raised by the J.D. Sonatan Gope that the order sought to be executed against him could not be executed, was allowed on contest.
(2.) THE said Bank went into liquidation on 19 -12 -49. Shri M.N. Chakravorty who was appointed official liquidator moved the Company Court (a special Bench of the Calcutta High Court which was invested with the jurisdiction for dealing with Company matters) by way of an application praying for a decree against Sonataon Gope respdt. a debtor of the Company. It was ordered on contest that the said respondent Sonatan Gope do pay to the said Company a sum of Rs. 15,895/ - with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent p. a. from the date of realisation. An application for execution of the above order was made in that court, but as property of Sonaton Gope was lying in Tripura State, the proceedings were transferred to the Sub -Judge's Court, Tripura. During the course of execution proceedings in the Sub -Judge's Court, Sanaton Gope. the judgment -debtor, raised objections that the said order as such was not capable of execution as a decree and secondly that the order passed by the High Court a summary order under the Banking Company's Act is without jurisdiction. The learned Sub -Judge has decided the first point in favour of the Bank holding that by virtue of S. 36, C. P. C. an order is capable of being executed in the same manner as a decree; the second point urged, however, was decided against the appellant decree -holder, holding that the order was without jurisdiction, the summary proceedings taken for the purpose were void ab initio and that the order before him for execution was not capable of being executed. The above finding has been based on a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court: - 'Sree Bank Ltd. v. P.C. Mukherjee',, 55 Cal WN 400 (A). In the result the objection under S. 47, Civil P. C. made by the judgment -debtor was allowed on contest and the execution case was dismissed as incompetent.
(3.) THE decision on the first point is not disputed in this appeal. The only contest is whether the Company Court had jurisdiction to pass the order amounting to a decree on an application in the manner it did, and whether it was open to the executing court to whom the Execution proceedings were transferred, to refuse to execute that order if it found that it was passed without jurisdiction. In other words, is it within the power of a transferee Court to question the validity of the order on the ground that the original court had no jurisdiction to pass it?;