9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts as they are not to be decided except a few facts which are necessary to decide the issue. 2. The plaintiff/Andhra Bank Ltd., filed a suit in C.S. No. 28/1975 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,58,214.79 from the defendants, after obtaining a decree on 25.4.1979, directing defendants 3 and 4 and defendants 5 to 11, from out of the assets, if any, of the deceased R.S. Jhaver, who is the original defendant, in the hands of defendants 5 to 11. The appellant got assignment of the said decree from General Electric Co. of India, as there is a provision in the decree that defendants 2 and 3 and defendants 5 to 11 shall pay to the 4th defendant, the decree amount and that the 4th defendant be entitled to execute the decree on payment of 50% of the Court Fee payable at 75% of Rs. 17,50,000. The assignee-decree holder filed E.P. No. 121/1985 before this Court and the same was transferred to Sub-Court, Poonamallee and renumbered as E.P. No. 80/1985. Thereafter, the appellant filed E.P.Nos. 57, 58, 69, 70 and 71 of 1986. The learned Master while considering the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that simultaneous execution of the decree without obtaining permission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed in view of the order dated 18.7.2000 in the Appeals ? 8. First we are inclined to deal with the point No. 2, first. Since the appellant has not taken steps to serve the notice on certain respondents, the appeals were posted in the list and in the order dated 18.7.2000, the Division Bench passed the following order: As a last chance, the appellant is granted time till 24.7.2000 (inclusive of 24.7.2000). Failing to comply with the required formalities by them, the appeal will stand dismissed automatically without any further orders from this Court . In spite of the said order, the appellant has not taken steps to serve the notice on the respondents 1 and 5 in O.S.A.Nos. 51 to 53 of 1991, respondents 6 and 7 in O.S.A. Nos. 54 to 56 of 1991 and respondents 6 and 7 in O.S.A.Nos. 68 and 69 of 1991. We have come to the said conclusion only because the learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to point out from the records that they have complied with the direction to serve the notice on the above said respondents. So the appeals have to be dismissed insofar as respondents 1 and 5 in O.S.A. Nos. 51 to 53 of 1991, respondents 6 and 7 in O.S.A.Nos. 54 to 56 of 1991 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve the same power in executing such a decree as if it had been passed by itself. 12. Order 21 of the Code deals with execution of the decree and orders. Order 21, Rule 5 of the Code deals with mode of transfer of a decree for execution. Order 21, Rule 10 of the Code deals with Application for execution according to which the decree-holder shall apply to the Court which passes the decree or to the transferee Court if the decree has been transferred for the purpose of execution, 13. Order 21, Rule 21 of the Code deals with simultaneous execution, which reads as follows: 21. Simultaneous execution:- The Court may, in its discretion, refuse execution at the same time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor. The above said provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said provision only deals with simultaneous execution both against the person and the property. It does not deal with the execution of a decree at the same time in different Courts and by filing different execution petitions in the same Court. We are now concerned with reference to the execution of a decree in different Courts by filing many execution petitions more than one to execute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad110 , Mahadum Beg Sahib v. Md. Meera Sahib, AIR 1928 Mad. 493 and in Rama Reddi v. Motilal Daga, ILR 1938 Mad. 326. 18. In view of the settled position, though the other Courts have taken contra view, now we have to proceed on the basis that the decree passed on the file of the Original Side of this Court can be executed in this Court simultaneously, though the copy of the decree has been transferred to the other Court for execution. So, the remaining question is whether the decree-holder has to obtain permission from the Court that passed the decree to sustain such simultaneous execution petition. 19. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the conditions under which a decree passed may be sent to another Court for execution. It may be sent for execution to another Court if immovable property to be sold or delivered situates outside the limit of jurisdiction of the Court which passes the decree and presumably within the limits of jurisdiction of the Court to which it is sent for execution. It may also be sent to another Court if the judgment-debtor resides there or carries on business or works for gain within the limits of the jurisdiction of that Court. If the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier order of transfer was passed not on valid reasons, though the judgment-debtor is having sufficient property of much value to satisfy the decree within the jurisdiction of the High Court (Original Side). The said satisfaction can be arrived at only if the appellant files an application seeking permission to file execution petition before the Original Side of this Court. Such application is necessary because if the decree is executed in two or more Courts at the same time, there is a possibility of realising more amounts from the judgment-debtor, then it is against the interest of the judgment-debtor. Moreover, if the full amount of decree is realised by two or three Courts, it is difficult to see how matters can be worked out, which of the sale has to be held valid and on what ground and what interest would be acquired by the purchaser on those sales. 21. The above view is supported by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Sree Raja Narasaraju Peda Baliar Simhulu Bahadur, ILR 1914 Mad 231, in which it is held that when concurrent execution is necessary, the Court which passed the decree may order it, as such Court ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
