Civil revision petition preferred against the order dated 14.09.2011 made in E.P.No.15 of 2010 in O.S.No.17 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.
ORDER
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam in E.P.No.15 of 2010 in O.S.No.17 of 2001, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Synoptically and succinctly, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
Indubitably and indisputably, the money decree was passed by the Sub Court. Subsequently, an appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed. Thereupon, two EPs were filed before the Munsif Court because of the change of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts concerned. Those two EPs were dismissed. The third EP, so to say, E.P.No.15 of 2010 was filed before the Sub Court, which originally passed the decree when it had the pecuniary jurisdiction. It appears enquiry was conducted relating to means of the judgment debtor and ultimately, the trial Court ordered arrest, as against which the present revision has been filed mainly focussing the jurisdiction of the Sub Court to deal with the matter.
3. The point for consideration is as to whether the third E.P.No.15 of 2010 should have been filed before the Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam instead of having filed the same before the Sub Court which originally passed the decree, but subsequently lost its pecuniary jurisdiction?
4. I would like to refer to the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 as amended by virtue of the amendments viz., (i) Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and the City Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2003 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2004) and (ii) Tamil Nadu Act 19 of 2010 w.e.f. 27.05.2010, as per which, as on the date of the decreeing the suit, the Sub Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction and accordingly, decreed the suit. Subsequently in view of the aforesaid amendments, the Munsif Court happened to be the Court in which similar suits could be filed and as such understanding the same, the decree holder filed directly two EPs before the Munsif Court and those EPs were dismissed for some technical reasons and subsequently, the third EP was filed before the Sub Court without any basis for switching over from Munsif Court to Sub Court.
5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would refer to Section 37 of CPC and placing reliance on the explanation appended to it would submit that the civil Court as well as the Munsif Court could be taken to be the Courts having jurisdiction to deal with the EP. I would like to point out that the said explanation is only with regard to the territorial jurisdiction and not to pecuniary jurisdiction. Here pecuniary jurisdiction as per the aforesaid amendments of the Civil Courts Act is
involved and in such a case, when the decree holder wants to file afresh an E.P., he should have in mind Section 37 of CPC which reads thus:
"Section 37: The expression "Court which passed a decree", or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include,
(a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and
(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."
But the Sub Court erroneously entertained it and dealt with the matter. Hence I am of the considered view that E.P.No.15 of 2010 should be transferred from the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam to the Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam and renumbered as a fresh E.P. As such, both the parties shall appear before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam on 24.04.2012, whereupon the District Munsif Court shall afresh enquire into the means and consider the EP and pass suitable orders.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.