The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court,

(a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(c) if the decree directs the sale of immoveable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, or

(d) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason, which it shall record in writing, that the decree should be executed by such other Court.

The Court which passed a decree may, of its own motion, send it for execution to any Court subordinate thereto.

The Court to which a decree is sent under this section for execution shall certify to the Court which passed it the fact of such execution, or, where the former Court fails to execute the same, the circumstances attending such failure.

If the decree has been passed in a suit of which the value as set forth in the plaint did not exceed two thousand rupees and which, as regards its subject-matter, is not excepted by the law for the time being in force from the cognizance of either a Presidency or a Provincial Court of Small Causes and the Court which passed it wishes it to be executed in Calcutta, Madras, Bombay or Rangoon, such Court may send to the Court of Small Causes in Calcutta, Madras, Bombay or Rangoon, as the case may be, the copies and certificate respectively mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 224; and such Court of Small Causes shall thereupon execute the decree as if it had been passed by itself.

If the Court to which a decree is to be sent for execution is situate within the same district as the Court which passed such decree, such Court shall send the same directly to the former Court. But, if the Court to which the decree is to be sent for execution is situate in a different district, the Court

which passed it shall send it to the District Court of the district in which the decree is to be executed.

Application of Section.-This section applies to H. C. and P. S. C. C. It also applies to rent-decrees under Act X of 1859-Nilmoni Singh v. Taranath, I. L. R., 9 Ind. App., 174. The words in the last clause but one from "Court of Small Causes" have been substituted by Act VII of 1888, section 22. The It passed" down to the end of amendment was made to prevent any doubt as to the case that could be sent for execution to the Small Cause Court at the Presidency.

May, on the Application of the Decree-holder.-The word "may" shows that clause (c) is an extension of the powers of a Court to execute its own decree, which can be exercised when the procedure described in clauses (a) and (d) would be inconvenient--Kartick Nath vs. Tilukdhari, I. L. R., 15 Cal., 667; and see Maseyk vs. Steel, I. L. R. 14 Cal. 661.

The Court which Passed It.-If the subject-matter of the suit is within the Court's jurisdiction of the Court, the jurisdiction continues in all matter of execution.-Shamlav vs. Niloji, I. L. R., 10 Bom., 200.

Where the Court which has passed the decree has ceased to have jurisdiction, application for execution may be made either to that Court or to the Court which (if the suit wherein the decree had been passed, were instituted at the time of making the application to execute it) would have jurisdiction to try the case-Lachman Pundeh vs. Maddan Mohun, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 513; Paluckdhary vs. Radha Purshad, 4 C. L. R., 342.

Provisions hereinafter Contained.-As to the effects of the Scheduled Districts Act, see Kashi Mohun vs. Bishnoo, I. L. R., 15 Cal., 365.

Outside British India.-See section 229, post; and compare Kasturchand vs. Parsha, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 230.

On Application.-It is not necessary that the decree or a copy of it should be produced with the application--Gunga Gobind vs. Makhun, 9 W. R., 362; Khettar Mohan vs. Ishen, 11 W. R., 271; Modhoo Dossia vs. Nobin Chunder, 16 W. R., 25.

An application to send is not an application to execute within section 230, postNilmony Singh vs. Biressur, I. L. R., 16 Cal., 745; but it is a step in aid of executionLachman Pundeh vs. Madan Mohun, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 513. See "LIMITATION," infra.

Shall Certify to the Court which Passed It.-If the decree-holder requires that the decree should be executed in the original district before the return of the certificate, the original Court may recall the proceedings-Ashootosh Dutt vs. Doorga Churn Chatterjee, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 504. On the other hand, if the judgment-debtor has out of Court partly satisfied the debt, subsequent to the transmission of the decree for execution to another Court, but before actual execution has been applied for, he is entitled, on execution being demanded in full, to an order from the Court to which the decree has been transferred, calling upon the decree-holder to certify the fact of such payment-Rajendronath Roy vs. Chunnoomul, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 448.

What Decree may be Executed.-Whether the decree of the Lower Court is reversed, modified or affirmed, the decree passed in the Appellate Court is the final decree and as such the only decree capable of execution--Ram Charan vs. Lakhi Kant, 7 B. L. R., 704; Muhammad Sulaiman vs. Muhammad Yar, I. L. R., 11 Alla., 267; but see Nourang Rai vs. Latif Chaudhri, I. L. R., 13 Alla., 394, and if it is altered by the Court of first instance execution cannot issue – Muhammad Sulaiman vs. Fatima, I. L. R., 11 Alla., 314; and hence it is expedient in all cases to embody so much of the decree as it is intended to affirm, and thus avoid reference to the suspended decree-Kisto Kinker Ghose vs. Burrodacaunt, 10 B. L. R., 101; and where the decree in the Appellate Court awarded Rs. 195 costs, and as a fact it appeared from the first Court's decree the sum was Rs. 161, the last decree was executed--Shobrat Singh vs. Bridgman, I. L. R., 4 Alla., 376; see, however, Mir Ajmuddin vs. Mathura, 11 Bom., 206; but where the appellate decree is not complete in itself, reference must be made to the prior decree--Shorhat Singh vs. Bridgman, I. L. R., 4 Alla., 376. Thus, where the last decree was "that the order of the Lower Court be upheld and the appeal dismissed, appellant to pay the costs," the costs as specified in the first decree were recovered-Himayat vs. Jai Devi, I. L. R., 5 Alla., 589; Behari Lal vs. Khubchand, I. L. R., 6 Alla., 48. See also Gobordhan Dass vs. Gopal Ram, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 366.

Special Appeals.-In the case of Kisto Kinker Ghose vs. Burrodacaunt, supra, their Lordships of the Privy Council suggested that there might be cases in which the Appellate Court, especially in special appeal, might see good reason to limit its decision to a simple dismissal of the appeal and to abstain from confirming a decree erroneous or questionable, and yet not open to examination by reason of the special and limited nature

of the appeal. This suggestion has not been adopted further than this, that when the last decree affirms and adopts the mandatory part of the first decree, this document should be referred to and the mandatory part of it so affirmed should be executed as if it was the decree of the Appellate Court-Gobardhan Das vs. Gopal Ram, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 366. See also Noor Ali vs. Koni, I. L. R., 13 Cal., 13; Muhammad Sulaiman vs. Muhammad Yar, I. L. R., 11 Alla., 267.

Privy Council.-Although an order of Her Majesty in Council may only confirm the decree of the Court below, it is the order that must be executed-Lachman Pershad vs. Kishun, I. L. R., 8 Cal., 218.

Resides. See note on sections 16 and 17, ante. Where plaintiff sought to execute his decree by attaching the pay of his debtor, and neither the debtor nor his payer resided within the local jurisdiction, the order of attachment was held void-Rango vs. Balkrishna, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 44.

Has not Property within Local Limits: Irregularity.-Before a Court will act in such a case, it will require to be satisfied in some manner, by sworn testimony or by affidavit, that these facts exist. Where a decree has been executed by a Court other than that in which it was passed, the title of the purchaser cannot be avoided by shewing that there was property of the judgment debtor within the jurisdiction of the Court that passed the decree which might have been attached and sold-Kally Prosunno Bose vs. Dinonath, 19 W. R., 434.

Outside Jurisdiction.—Wholly.-Neither a Subordinate Judge nor Munsif could exercise jurisdiction where the subject-matter of the suit or application was property wholly falling outside the territorial jurisdiction allowed under section 18, Act VI of 1871 -Dakhina Churn vs. Bilash Chunder, I. L. R., 18 Cal., 527; Obhoy Churn vs. Golam Ali, 7 C. L. R., 410; I. L. R., 7 Cal., 410. So a Munsif cannot under a decree for rent selĺ property beyond his jurisdiction (id) and a Court has no jurisdiction to sell property in execution of a mortgage-decree over which it had not jurisdiction either at the time of suit or at the passing of the order of sale-Prem Chand Dey vs. Mokhoda, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 699; but if after a mortgage-decree property passed, land is placed wholly under another locaĺ jurisdiction, execution may be pursued either to the Court which passed the decree or the Court within whose jurisdiction it lay at the time of application-Kartick Nath vs. Tilukdhari, I. L. R., 15 Cal., 667; Latchman Pandeh vs. Madun Mohun, I. L. R., 8 Cal., 703; and see Prem Chand Dey vs. Mokhoda, I. L. R., 17 Cal., 699.

Not Wholly Outside.-Under Act VIII of 1859, the Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs got a money-decree and applied for execution; but before sale he sent a certificate to the District Court of Nuddea and the Judge attached and sold an estate entered in the Collector's roll of that district and where the revenue was paid. Some of the lands of the estate were in the 24-Pergunnahs. Held, the sale passed these lands-Kally Prosonno Bose vs. Dinonath, 11 B. L. R., 56, 19 W. R., 434; Gunga Narain vs. Annunda, 12 C. L. R., 404, and in a suit on a mortgage under section 19, Act X of 1877, a decree was passed in connection with an estate registered in Backerjunj by a Subordinate Judge of that district it was held he could sell the whole estate although a portion of it fell within the district of Furridpore-Shurroop Chunder vs. Ameerunnissa, I. L. R., 8 Cal., 703; and where a decree was obtained in one district on a mortgage in connection with lands lying in different districts and registered in the Collectorate of another district, it was held the Court giving the decree could sell the property, though a doubt was expressed if this could be done under a simple money-decree Maseyk vs. Steel, I. L. R., 14 Cal., 661; followed in Kartick Nath Pandey vs. Tiluckdhari, I. L. R., 15 Cal., 667. In such cases the Court is not bound to send the case to another Court under clause (c)—Gopimohun vs. Doybaki, I. L. R., 19 Cal., 13. Again in the case of Unnocool Chunder vs. Hurry Nath, 2 C. L. R., 334, it was held that the case of Kally Prosunno, supra, did not apply to a sale by a Munsif under Act VIII of 1859 of an estate lying in different munsifees in the same district; and in Ram Lall Moitra vs. Bama Sunduri, 12 C. L. R., it was decided that a Munsif had power under a money-decree to sell a share of an estate lying within three munsifees in the same district.

Concurrent Execution.-A decree given in the District of Burdwan was executed there as far as possible. The decree holder then applied to the Court to have it executed in three other districts, asking that certain specified properties should be there attached, but that the properties in one particular district should be first sold; and if the decree should be then unsatisfied, that the properties in the other districts should in turn be sold. The Court accordingly issued the necessary certificates (such as are now required by section 224) to the Courts of these three districts, and the properties were attached. The question was then raised and tried whether such attachments were valid and according to law, and it was held by the Privy Council that they were good attachments and could be made if a Court should, in exercise of its discretion, think fit to do so. Their Lordships remarked:

"It would, no doubt in many cases, be a right exercise of the discretion of the Court not to act on the power and to refuse to send a decree for concurrent execution

into several places; and when it did act on it, it would be in many cases proper to impose terms on decree-holders, that they should not proceed to sale under all the attachments at once."-Saroda Prosad vs. Luchmeeput, 17 W. R., 289; 10 B. L. R., 214; 14 Moore, 529; Kisto Kishore Dutt vs. Rooplall, L. I. R., 8 Cal., 687.

Small Cause Court.-A decree may be sent for execution to another Court either on the application of the decree-holder on one of the grounds stated in this section, or by the Court which passed it of its own motion; but in this latter case, the transfer can be only to a subordinate Court. Looking to the terms of section 2, when defining the terms "District" and "District Court," it would seem that such a transfer could be properly made only by a District Court or a High Court, and not by a Subor dinate Judge, to a Munsif. It was held that this section did not modify section 2 of Act XI of 1865, and if the Judge of a Small Cause Court was invested with the powers of a Subordinate Judge he could sell immoveable property in execution of the Small Cause Court decree- Gopal vs. Nanku, I. L. R., 1 Alla., 624, without any formal transfer under this section, unless the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge was more extensive than that of the Small Cause Court Judge-Dharamdas vs. Vamangovind, I. L. R., 9 Bom., 237; Bhagvan vs. Bhalu, I. L. R., 8 Bom., 230 ; or he might send it to the Munsif having jurisdiction for execution-Kahanarama vs. Ranga, I. L. R., 8 Mad., 8.

A Court of Small Causes cannot execute its own decree against moveable property situated outside its jurisdiction. It must transfer it under this section-Parbatichurn vs. Panchanund, I. L. R., 6 Alla., 243.

Practice. It will be necessary for the holder of a decree which has been transferred for execution to another Court to make due application for execution to that Court (section 230, post). A District Court, on receiving a decree transferred for execution, can direct any subordinate Court to execute it (section 226). Where both Courts are in the same district one Court may send to the other direct-Kelu vs. Vikrisha, I. L. R., 15 Mad., 345.

Limitation.-An application under this section is not an application to execute -Nilmony Singh vs. Biressur Lal, I. L. R., 16 Cal., 744; but is an application to keep in force a decree-Collins vs. Moula Baksh, I. L. R., 2 Alla., 284; Setcharun Pandeh, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 513. If the application is made by a vakil after the death of his client, it does not save time running--Kallee vs. Mahomed, I. L. R., 7 Alla., 564.

See note on section 649, post.

Value: Jurisdiction.-A Munsif may execute a transferred decree of any amount_a_and is not limited to his ordinary jurisdiction—Narasayya vs. Venkatakrishnayya, I. L. R., 7 Mad., 397; not so-Durga Churn vs. Umatara, I. L. R., 16 Cal., 465; Gokulkristo vs. Aukhil Chunder, I. L. R., 16 Cal., 457. See also Sidheshwar vs. Harihar, I. L. R., 12 Bom., 155; and compare Kelu vs. Vikrisha, I. L. R., 15 Mad., 345.

Procedure when Court desires that its own decree shall be executed by another Court.

224. The Court sending a decree for execution under section 223 shall send(a) a copy of the decree;

(b) a certificate setting forth that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by execution within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed, or, where the decree has been executed in part, the extent to which satisfaction has been obtained and what part of the decree remains unexecuted; and

(c) a copy of any order for the execution of the decree, and if no such order has been made, a certificate to that effect.

Act VIII of 1859, section 286. This section applies to H. C. and P. S. C. C. Copy.-For Court-fee on such copies, see Act VII of 1870, Schedule I, Article 7. Forms.-For form of certificate, see Schedule IV, No. 134, infra.

See the latter portion of the note to section 223 regarding the powers of Small Cause Courts to transfer their decrees for execution elsewhere.

Presumption.-Where the validity of an attachment under a decree transferred to another district for execution was in dispute between the parties to a suit, with special

reference to the fact whether a copy of the decree" had been sent with the certificate; it was held by the Privy Council that the attachment having been made, it must be presumed to have been correctly made (see section 114, Indian Evidence Act), and that consequently the onus lay on the party denying the fact-Saroda Prosad Mullick vs. Luchmeeput, 17 W. R., 289; 10 B. L. R., 214. See "SECONDARY EVIDENCE," section 330, post.

Copy of any Order.-The order must be a subsisting order-Hathibhai vs. Patel, I. L. R., 13 Bom., 371. If any order is passed under section 248, post, a copy of it should be sent Srihari Mundul vs. Murari, I. L. R., 13 Cal., 257.

Secondary Evidence of Decree.-See section 230, post.

225. The

Court receiving copies of decree, &c., to file same without proof.

Court to which a decree is so sent shall cause such copies and certificate to be filed, without any further proof of the decree or order for execution, or of the copies thereof, or of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, unless the former Court, for any special reasons to be recorded under the hand of the Judge, requires such proof.

Act VIII of 1859, section 286. This section applies to H. C. and P. S. C. C. The filing of the copies and the certificate is quite distinct from executing the decree, for which an application should be regularly made. See section 245, post.

Jurisdiction.-This section recognises the right of the executing Court to inquire into the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree-Haji Musa vs. Purmanand, I. L. R., 15 Bom., 209, p. 219; and see Mohan Ishwar vs. Haku, I. L. R., 4 Bom., 638; Muhammad Sulaiman vs. Fatima, I. L. R., 11 Alla., 314.

226. When such copies are so filed, the decree or order may, if the Court to which it is sent be the District Court, be executed by such Court or by any subordinate Court which

Execution of decree or order by Court to which it is sent.

it directs to execute the same.

Act VIII of 1859, section 287. This section applies to H. C.

A judgment of the Privy Council was sent for execution to the Judge of Ghazipore, who referred it to his Subordinate Judge. This officer, finding that the land in dispute had been annexed to the District of Shahabad, transferred the case direct to the Judge of that district, who, in turn, referred it to his Subordinate Judge: Held, that the proceedings were regular-Pulukdhari Roy vs. Radha Pershad, 8 Ind. App., 165.

A Court of Small Causes within a District is subordinate to the District Judge. See section 2, "District Court."

Execution by High Court of decree transmitted by other Court.

227. If the Court to which the decree is sent for execution be a High Court, the decree shall be executed by such Court in the same manner as if it had been made by such Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

This section applies to H. C. and P. S. C. C.

Ordinarily a decree would be sent for execution to a High Court, only when it has been passed in a case not cognizable by a Small Cause Court, for in such a case it would be sent to the local Court of Small Causes. See section 223, ante.

As to the execution of a judgment entered up under section 86 of the Indian Insolvent Act, see the case of Candas Narbondas, I. L. R., 11 Bom., 138; In re Bhagwandas, I. L. R., 8 Bom., 511; In re Candas, I. L. R., 13 Bom., p. 524.

Where a judgment is removed from an inferior to a superior Court under 1 and 2 Vict., Cap. 110, section 22, for execution, the superior Court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the merits or into the regularity of the proceedings in the Court belowWilliams vs. Bolland, 1 C. P. D., 227; otherwise, if the decree has been passed without jurisdiction-Bridge vs. Branch, 1 C. P. D., 633; Oram vs. Preary, L. R., 2 Ex. D., 346. And see section 225, ante.