SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS is a judgment debtors' appeal and arises out of an execution proceeding. A decree for a some of Rs. 2817/2/6 was obtained by the respondent Anand Bhanwar Bank, Karauli against the appellants Mst. Badami and Ramjilal from the court of the Munsif, Karauli who, according to the Matsya Civil Court Ordinance which was then in force, had power to hear suits upto the valuation of Rs. 3000/ -. The decree-holder filed an execution application in the Court of the Munsif, Karauli. However, in July, 1950, Matsya Civil Courts Ordinance was repealed by the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance according to which the powers of the Munsif were limited to the suits of the valuation of Rs. 2000/ -. The Munsif thought that he had no longer any power to execute the decree and transferred it to the court of Civil Judge, Karauli, who had jurisdiction over suits above Rs. 2000/- within his territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the court of Civil Judge, Karauli was abolished and its jurisdiction was transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Gangapur. The case was, therefore, sent to the Civil Judge, Gangapur and on the 4th of July, 1950, notices were issued to both the parties to appeal in his court. An objection was filed under sec. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code by the judgment debtors in the court of Civil Judge, Gangapur in which it was submitted that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The learned Civil Judge held that although the Munsif of Karauli had jurisdiction to execute the decree, yet because he too was empowered to hears suits above the valuation of Rs. 2000/- and Karauli was within his territorial jurisdiction, the decree could be executed in his court also. He also held that the objection was belated and could be taken to have been waived by the judgment debtors. On this view he dismissed the objection.
(2.) THE judgment debtors went in appeal to the court of District Judge, Bharatpur who agreed with the Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. Now the judgment (debtors have come in the second appeal. It has been urged by Mr. P. C. Bhandari on behalf of the appellants that a decree could be executed either by the court which passed the decree or by the court to which it is sent for execution. The decree was passed by the Munsif of Karauli. Therefore, he could execute it. If it were to be executed by some other court, then it ought to have been transferred to that court under sec. 39 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code which requires that an application should be made by the decree holder. The Munsif of Karauli could not transfer the execution proceedings of his own motion as such a transfer could be made only to a subordinate court of competent jurisdiction. As the court of Civil Judge, Gangapur was not subordinate vis a vis the Munsif's court, the transfer by the Munsif of his own motion was invalid. He relied upon the case of Abdul Satar vs. Mohini Mohan Das and others (1) (AIR 1933 Cal. 684.), Iswari Prasad Singh vs. Farkat Hussain (2) (AIR 1916 Pat. 3.), Masrab Khan vs. Debnath Mali alias Abhu Mali and others (3) (AIR 1942 Cal. 321.) and Suryanarayan Agarwalla vs. Maheswar Keot (4) (AIR 1950 Assam 115. ). It was further argued that the lower courts have themselves held that the Munsif could execute the decree and they have not held that the decree was properly transferred in accordance with sec. 38 of the Civil Procedure Code to the court of Civil Judge. Under these circumstances, they were not justified in holding that decree could be executed in the court of Civil Judge. It was further argued that the appellant could not be said to have waived the question of jurisdiction as he preferred this objection when he came to know about the transfer of the decree. On behalf of the respondent it has been argued by his learned counsel that the learned Civil Judge, Gangapur had jurisdiction over suits above Rs. 2000/- and so the decree could be executed in his court also. The execution had been pending for considerable time in the court of Civil Judge, Karauli and then in the court of Civil Judge, Gangapur when this objection was taken. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. From the authorities produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the court which had higher pecuniary jurisdiction at the time it passed the decree in question has power to execute the decree even though its pecuniary powers are afterwards reduced. In the case of Suryanarayan Agarwalla (1) (AIR 1950 Assam 115.) quoted above the decree was for more than Rs. 1000/- and was passed by a court which was presided over by an officer who had pecuniary jurisdiction to try suits valued upto Rs. 2000/. An application for execution of the decree was made to the same court, but at the time when it was presided over by an officer who had jurisdiction to try suits valued upto Rs. 1000/- only. It was held that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for execution. In the case of Abdul Sattar (2) (AIR 1933 Cal. 684.), it was held that "the court which passed the decree has power to execute the decree notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 37 and the court which passed the decree does not cease to exist merely because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said court has been altered. " In the case of Masrab Khan (3) (AIR 1942 Cal. 321.) it was held that "even if in the circumstances of a particular case a court cannot effectively execute the decree, that would not mean that it has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute it. It still remains the competent court for purposes of execution, though the decree holder might have to apply for transmission of the decree to another court for the purpose of obtaining the relief which wants. " In the Patna case of Iswari Prasad Singh (4) (AIR 1916 Pat. 3.), a decree was passed in a suit of the value of over Rs. 1000/- by Munsif who had jurisdiction to try suits upto the value of Rs. 2000/ -. He was succeeded by a Munsif having jurisdiction to try suits upto the value of Rs. 1000/- only. An application for execution was made to the latter officer. It was held that "the application was made to the proper court. " It therefore, goes without saying and also has been held by the lower courts that the Munsif of Karauli had jurisdiction to execute the decree even though his pecuniary powers were reduced. Under sec. 38 of the Civil Procedure Code, a decree can be executed either by the court which passed the decree or by the court to which it is sent for execution. The decree could therefore, be executed either by the Munsif of Karauli or by the court to which it was sent for execution. This decree was sent for execution to the court of Civil Judge by the Munsif of Karauli. Of course no application was made by the decree holder for the transfer of the decree in accordance with the sub-sec. 1 of sec. 38 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Munsif could not send the decree for the execution to the court of Civil Judge of his own motion as the Civil Judge was not subordinate to him. The decree was therefore not transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Karauli in accordance with law. The lower courts have, however held that because the Civil Judge, Gangapur has at present power to execute the decrees of similar amounts, he cannot be said to be altogether without jurisdiction. It is true that the civil Judge of Gangapur has at present powers to execute similar decrees. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was a total lack of jurisdiction in the Civil Judge, Gangapur to execute the decree. At the most what can be said is that there had been irregularity in the transfer of the decree to the court of Civil Judge Karauli. But in such a case, it was the duty of the judgment debtor to take this objection in the court of Civil Judge, Karauli as soon as he got notice of the decree having been transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Karauli. The judgment debtors filed objections in the court of Civil Judge, Karauli on the 23rd May, 1950, but the objection regarding irregularity of transfer is conspicuous by its absence in those objections. For the first time, the objection was taken on the ground of irregularity of transfer in the court of the Civil Judge, Gangapur on the 22nd of February, 1951, i. e. , about nine months after the first objections were filed by the judgment debtors in the court of the Civil Judge, Karauli. Their belated objection filed on the 22nd of February, 1951, was therefore, properly disallowed by the Civil Judge, Gangapur. To my mind, the appeal has no force and it is dismissed with costs to the contesting respondent. . ;