CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS Review Petition has been moved against my order dated 9.02.1990 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.680/89 which was filed against the order of the learned Munsiff, Ratangarh dated 25.11.89, directing the decree-holder-petitioner to first pay court-fee of Rs. 38,485/-. By order dated 9.02.1990, this Court directed the Executing Court (Munsiff Ratangarh) to give facility of the payment of the said court-fee in instalments to the decree-holder.
(2.) ALONGWITH the Review Petition, an application under Section 5, Limitation Act has been moved. An affidavit has been filed in its support. Neither any reply nor any counter-affidavit has been filed by the non-petitioner Anandi Lal. The affidavit of Shanker Lal Panwar, Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted. As such there is no option but to believe it. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing Review Petition is condoned. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Execution Application No.9/86 was moved by the decree-holder-non- petitioner Anandi Lal before the Munsiff, Ratangarh after the commencement of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') which came into force with effect from November 01, 1985 and as such the Munsiff, Ratangarh had no jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the provisions of Section 37(b), C.P.C. read with Sections 14 & 28 of the Act. He relies upon Mehar Ban Khan Vs. Union of India (1 ). In reply, it is contended by learned counsel for the non- petitioner Anandi Lal that the Munsiff, Ratangarh had jurisdiction to execute his own decree which was confirmed by this Court in second appeal. He relies upon Adarsh Kumar Vs. V.O.I. (2), Virendra Prasad Vs. Union of India & Others (3) and Rajendra Singh Vs. Union of India & Others There is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India. Admittedly, the execution application was filed before the Munsiff, Ratangarh in the year 1986. It is not in dispute that the Act came into force with effect from November 01, 1985 and the decree under execution relates to service matters as defined in Section 2(q) of the Act viz., arrears of pay and allowances. Clause (b) of section 37, C.P.C. runs as under: "(b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit". After the coming into force of the Act, the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the matters relating to service matters. Section 29 of the Act required the transfer of suits and proceedings relating to service matters of the Central Government employees pending before any Court or other authority immediately before the date of the coming into force of the Act to the Tribunal. After the coming into force of the Act, the Munsiff, Ratangarh had ceased to have jurisdiction to execute his decree as provided under Section 37(b), C.P.C, read with Section 28 of the Act and the Tribunal acquired the jurisdiction under section 14 of the Act. In Rajendra Singh Vs. Union of India (supra), the provisions of Section 37(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 29 of the Act were not considered. Moreover, no reason has been given in holding that an application for execution of a decree in respect of which the appeal was disposed of by the High Court would not lie to the Tribunal. In Virendra Prasad Vs. Union of India (supra), the case was reserved for judgment and as such it was held that the case was not pending when the Act came into force. In Adresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (supra) an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C, was pending for setting aside the ex-parte decree and it was held that such proceedings were proceedings in which no question of execution of a decree passed by a civil court was involved. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner submits that the Tribunal may reject his application for execution on the ground of great delay and it may also insist for the payment of court- fee of Rs. 38,485/- before proceeding with the execution of the decree.
(3.) THE decree-holder Anandi Lal will have to file a fresh application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for the execution of the decree obtained by him. Rule 7, Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1985 prescribes fixed court-fee of Rs. 50/- for an application moved before the Tribunal. Section 37 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have overriding effect. As such there is no question of the Union of India pressing for the payment of court-fee of Rs. 38.485/- and the Tribunal directing so. It is hoped and trusted that the Tribunal will condone the delay under Section 21(3) of the Act in filing application for the execution of the decree, if filed within three months. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. The order dated 9.02.1990 is withdrawn and cancelled. The Revision Petition is dismissed.;