IN THE HIGH cook? or KARNAIAKA, aauuanong
DATED mars THE 14th any or MmncH{W2§§3r{ wu
pnmsmxr ' HR
was HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE:A:N;VENfi#6?§$A é6WDAr'
waxw PETITION Nb.éooai/éooa(@fif¢§é)_f%j
BETWEEN _ 2 ._ __ 4 % 2
T.ManjuJ.a,
W/o D.Nat.a.raj, V
Aged snout «I4 years 1
Staff Nurse, :
Maternity Hogpital § '
Primary Hea.:.th.._Un;fg.t,
gl_ghn]can11;-%, -_ 3 '
---------qr -
Myaore.,~'",f£~{"Qrj¥,V',":'.,.v?..=:3,'=-.rac.'d.1., S-r.Co-.1 eel for Res-t.)
,_ :fiisVw? Is FILES UEBER ARTICLES 226 a 22" -
ma. cousrxmnou or INDIA 1°:-zmrnze 1'0 QUASH ma
OREER 1'D:'li"F'.JT).22. ' ' ET - i'ASSED BY THE
». 6.'66'
,'*c;v1L" JUDGE (an.nu.) AND aura Am wzprua IN
.rx;No.17/2003.
This WP coming on tor further orders this
~ day, the Court made the following:
v .. _ 1" ,_
'cl 1;' A3 -Ilfian Fl .34 1 'Ih: I_Tau- fidIug§_QJ' In 1-0::
Inul-L3 Kiln BIKE \-I-I-V'-L-L IJUVIH 'UL L In
and another. To execute 'the _.é:1ecree,°} 'then'
petitioner has filed exée§t»1on ¢a§e'teo.'Vijf'}éoo3 1:;
the court of Civil *.!.3'.1.\rits--.'Iv.Von')'" Tiptur.
Respondent has the execution
case. objections, the
executing’ order or attachment
on ifitage, respondent had.
filed the decree to the Court
of C:l.1″ri,1.” eadag for execution and to
..l-l. 7′. _ ‘._r >…I.’V”_.I..’;._’I __ _ _ .q -4 .|._.|..- J.–J.__…__a._ _ h.._.._
-35-‘; ‘ WL ., 51.-aI’l:>-‘gklu ‘J I wl'”L (Jul: LII? Juwllfillk WLU’ ;
1′:-hat_>shve~’ is working in Gadag, which is outicie
the v.V__.A!{.:’oca..1 lirnits of the jurisdiction of the
V’ * eltecuting Court (‘riptur Court) and as ‘such the
decree has to be transferred to Gadag Civil
Judge’: Court, for execution. Reference to sub-
\/.
0′
section (4) of section 39 CBC was also and
the transfer to the Court of Civil
Gadag, was sought. Considering ”
application, the executing Court hiasljsesnedfthe it
order dated 22.5.2005, grieving -:;n,;: .;nn
transferring the aecren_ to the’ cnnr£7 or. éivil ‘
agent (are Division), n;nng..3 gnenrinning the
taetition has
2 . ifieerc ‘counsel on both sides
and perused; ‘ — ,
3’. ” Lear_ne¢iv.ii”‘connsel for the petitioner
contende¢i” that’ his not perlnissihle for the
enecutingz court'””i:o have transferred the decree on
‘=tne_fa§§1i§arion filed by the respondent, by
i’e;rercising..5’jurisdiction, under section 39 of CPC.
Leexnetl i ‘ counsel contended that, the impugned
it crater”. is ex facie illegal. Learned counsel also
ul…itted. that, the snlerv certificate produced
to the effect that the re-pendent bee been
working in Hubli has also not been noticséd and
the inpug-necl order is without jur1od1ot;l,oi::{“-hf:
4. Per contra, learned oounsoj.
respondents submitted that vi1,ew:_< E hf '
(4) of section 39 cars, u5.e_ hhpah?:s§d..
executing Court, nrpugnhagj'-.1;ero§LnV_ia_uonptninaiile. " L'
5. Point for.
Whether the conlnitted
any 11lega?Li’t:y4:- in order?
6. v'”xpt*ov1.de’s that) the Court
wh:Lc:h—- -paouoao-d;»’:’;”‘g ‘rray<}on the application of
the neand it for execution to
anothei*,__r;ov.:V_1:t' _o£. oong:ot_nt ju1*;od_;ot;-n= 11o_a.¢.:l_1ng
su.n–sootion (2? provides that, the
fiourtv' passed a decree may of its own
AA rnotioni', hand it for execution to any subordinate
'v<:_o§:'rt of oonpetent jurisdiction. In the instant
case transfer is not to any subordinate court.
Sub-section (4) provides" that, nothing in the
\../'
section shall be deemed to authorise the"-Court
which passed a decree to execute n1.1o4hVV"'deoree
against any person or property outside 'a
liznita of its jur1adJ.ct:i.on.f""
'7. There in no cLtapute".that the
into execution was pasaveditby the or civil
Judge (Jr. Division') rnfis""vexecut1on
petition has been which has
passed to the
execution " that, an appeal
had '—aga.'I;net the decree sought to
be 'application for stay was
<._.1.a:h' seetivon 1.-'51 CFC to t'r'az'1§re' 'he decree to
._ 3 Court at Gadag. As already
antigen} that the judgment debtor has no right
Ag under' section 39 CPC to seek transfer of a
* statute does not confer any right to:
the judgment debtor to seek the transfer of a
decree. Executing Court by noticing the fact
5/
( I
that, the Jdr is residing at Gadag, and algsiojthat
it is proper to transfer the decree t9.._\thVé:'4jCourt
or Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at–',4':_:Gada:g," ,.ii§;s"»
passed the impugned order, "$1.31, ereroiée them ht
jurisdiction under section "39 1'j'r:P'i:.
the order passed by tI£é_"":gxeofiting
herein is totally __ i1lego,J,VV':'anc'._iaioontrorir to the
provisions containoo," :9 CDC,
8. yearned tggr ‘h the petitioner
producer; ioartéiiiioate dated 27 .2.2008
issued.» ” Officer, Hubli –
Dharwad which shows that the
reapondejnt Visaiom 3 working in Chittaguppi
hohgitni ,. Vfiuiiiyi -H-L L!h.a._rI.w.r._.. -_..h__I:_.g..rz-. Ealilte and.
‘€.”‘~ti-n of Ri.5,6.-’56/-. the
parflqai flof the said certificate, it is clear
A thatithe respondent is employed in the hospital
by Hubli – Dharwad Mahanagara corporation at
Huhli. Hence the transfer order to Gadag being
without jurisdiction, is also without any
I
\/
=4
justification. since the executing Court-,j has
passed the order exercising jur1sdj_c_ticn44t:”~Ve. Ennut
vested in it and as the illegality
the impugned order is liable’ “to-he “_ee1_:V.” V’
In the result, W1f:£t4_ Petition
the inpugned order is aet’..:ea¢de.V” Court
1′ dirmted t° ‘the eatectticn for
recovery of the decretai “_1.:i.n accordance
with law. costs. 1: