Authored By : John Freeman Norris, Beverley

John Freeman Norris and Beverley, JJ.

1. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a sum ofmoney and brought his suit in the Munsifs Court. By an order of the DistrictJudge the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It wastried by that officer, and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. Thedecree-holder subsequently applied for execution of his decree in theSubordinate Judges Court. By an order of the District Judge the executionproceedings were transferred to the file of the Munsif. The judgment-debtorobjected to this order, but the Munsif decided against him, holding that theplea of jurisdiction could not stand. Upon appeal the District Judge held thatthe objection of the judgment-debtor on the question of jurisdiction was a goodone. The District Judges attention was called to the case of Balaji Ranchoddas, which has been cited before us, and with reference to that case he observesthat there are contradictory rulings.

2. We have to observe that this point has been raisedseveral times in this Court, and it has been constantly held that there is nopower to transfer execution proceedings, that the power is only to transfer asuit, and not to make a transfer of a suit after the suit has once beencommenced.

3. Our attention has been called by the learned pleader forthe appellant to a decision of the Allahabad High Court, which is certainly inhis favour. If this were a point of law, having regard to the conflictingdecisions, we should feel it our duty to refer it to a Full Bench ; but it is apure matter of practice, and no inconvenience, as far as we can see, will arisefrom our continuing to follow the course adopted by the decisions of thisCourt.

4. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

.

Kishori Mohun Settvs. Gul Mohamed Shaha (02.12.1887- CALHC)