ORDER
1. This is judgment-debtor’s writ petition.
2. M/s. Moti Lal Ram Ji Das, opposite party No. 3, filed a suit, against the petitioner for recovery of money, in the court of Judge Small Causes. It was decreed on 7-11-1980 for a sum Rs. 1,111/-. The decree became final.
3. Decree-holder filed an execution case No. 14 of 1982. The agricultural land belonging to the petitioner was attached. A date was fixed for auction sale.
4. At the time of the auction the decree-holder filed an application on 8-4-1982 for permission to participate in the auction. It was allowed. He was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted. Sale was confirmed on 26-3-1983. Sale certificate was issued in his favour.
5. Judgment-debtor filed an objection (paper No. 3/c) under S. 47, Civil P. C. His objections were that the agricultural land could not be attached and sold in execution of decree of Small Causes Court. He also raised an objection that the decree could not be transferred and the transferee court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution.
6. The learned Munsif rejected the objections on 1-12-1983. A revision was filed. It was dismissed on 12-5-1984. The present writ petition is directed against the said order.
7. Admittedly the decree was passed by Judge Small Causes. S. 38, Civil P. C. prescribes that the decree may be executed either by the court which passed it, or by the court to which it is sent for execution. S, 39(2), Civil P. C. provides that the court which passed the decree may on the application of the decree-holder send it for execution to another court of competent jurisdiction S. 39(3), Civil P. C., which is relevant for this case, runs as follows:
“39(3) For the purposes of this seciton, a Court shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction if, at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, such court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such decree was passed.”
8. Sub-section (3) of S. 39, Civil P. C. has been amended from time to time by the State of U.P. The first amendment was brought in the year 1954 by means of U. P. Act No.24 of 1954. It was again amended in 1970 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 1970). The latest amendment was brought in 1978 by U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978. It became applicable with effect from 1-8-1978. It is still in operation. It reads as follows:–
“(3) For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit wherein the decree was passed does not exceed the pecuniary limits, if any, or its ordinary jurisdiction at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it, notwithstanding that it had otherwise no jurisdiction to try the suit.”
9. The phrase ‘competent jurisdiction’ used
in sub-section (3) of S. 39, Civil P. C. as amended by State of U.P. refers to ‘pecuniary jurisdiction’ only and therefore if the transferee court had pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree is sought to be executed, the transferee court would be a court of competent jurisdiction within the meaning of S. 39, Civil P. C.
10. This phrase does not mean that the court executing the decree should have the jurisdiction over the subject-matter and to pass the decree in the suit itself.
11. Courts while interpreting the Statute always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislature’s intention is, that every part of the Statute should have its effect. Reference may be made to AIR 1961 SC 1170, J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v. State of U. P.
12. The language used in sub-section (3) of S. 39, Civil P. C. of U. P. Act No. 31 of 1978 gives a clear indication that while interpreting the scope of sub-section (3) of S. 39 the courts have only to keep it in mind that it refers to pecuniary jurisdiction and not the jurisdiction over the subject-matter. Reference may be made to 1978 ALJ 819, Gauri Shanker Misra v. M/s. Shiv Shanker Lal; another case reported in AIR 1978 Allahabad 428, Hafizul Rahmad v. Mohd. Askari; and a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1980 (6) ALR 65, Shakti Dhar v. D. Upadhyay.
13. The learned Munsif to whom the decree was transferred had the pecuniary jurisdiction over the suit decided by the Judge Small Causes. I find no illegality or irregularity in the transfer of the decree and power of the executing court in ailpwing the execution application.
14. This takes me to another important question whether the objection under S. 47, Civil P. C. filed by the petitioner was maintainable and any relief could be granted to him. This section deals with the question to be determined by the court executing the decree. According to it all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the
decree was passed, or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree shall be determined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
15. Admittedly the execution had come to an end before filing the objection under S. 47, Civil P.C.
16. In pursuance of the execution application the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner was attached. It was sold in auction. The sale was confirmed. Sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the decree holder. Once the sale is confirmed the judgment-debtor is not entitled to get back the property even if he succeeds thereafter in having the decree against him reversed.
17. The provision for sale of immovable property is contained in O. 21, R. 82, Civil P.C. which provides that sale of immovable property in execution of the decree may be ordered by any court other than a court of Small Causes. In pursuance of the same if the sale has taken place, then an application for setting aside the sale can be filed under the provisions of O.21, R. 89, Civil P.C. according to which where immovable property has been sold in execution of a decree (any person claiming an interest in the property sold at the time of the sale or at the time of making the application, or acting for or in the interest of such person) may apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in court –
1) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money; and
2) for payment to the decree holder, the amount specified in the proclamation of sale as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been received by the decree holder.
18. Another provision in the Civil P.C. for setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity or fraud is contained in O.21 R.90.
19. When no application is made under O.21, R.89, 90 or 91, Civil P.C. the sale becomes absolute under O.21, R.92, Civil P,C. The sale certificate is issued under O.21, R. 94, Civil P.C.
20. The effect of confirmation of sale is contained in S. 65 Civil P.C. which runs as follows:–
“65. Purchaser’s title.– Where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold, and not from the time when the sale becomes absolute.”
21. In view of this provision the title passes to the purchaser after the sale has become absolute and the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold and not from the time when the sale became absolute.
22. Once the property vests in the auction purchaser the right of the judgment-debtor comes to an end. In the instant case even the ministerial act of issuing sale certificate under O. 21, R. 94, Civil P.C. has been completed. He cannot be granted any relief under S. 47 or under O. 21, R. 90, Civil P.C. Reference may be made to the case of Janak Raj v. Gur Dayal Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608 : (1967 All LJ 524) and a recent case of the Supreme Court reported in judgment today 1991 (3) SC 75 : (AIR 1991 SC 1825). The Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya, Sagar v. Pandit Sadashiv Rao Harshe.
23. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmity in the impugned order.
24. The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.
25. Petition dismissed.