Patna High Court
Fagu Ram Mahadeo Ram vs Pannalal on 5 October, 1961
Equivalent citations: AIR1962PAT272
Author: N.L. Untwalia
Bench: N.L. Untwalia
JUDGMENT N.L. Untwalia, J.
1. This is a miscellaneous second appeal by the judgment-debtor and the only point pressed on its behalf is that the transfer of the decree by the small cause court at Calcutta for execution to the court of the 2nd Munsif at Buxar is not in accordance with Rule 5 of Order 21 read with Section 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. In this particular case, it seems the small cause court at Calcutta, which had passed the decree, sent it directly for execution to the court of 2nd Munsif at Buxar and did not send it through the district Judge of Shahabud, as required by Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code. Both the courts below have rejected this contention put forward on behalf or the appellant, and, in my opinion, they are right in the view of law taken by them.
2. Section 8 of the Code provides-
"Save as provided in Sections 24, 38 to 41, 75, Clauses (a), (5) and (c), 76, 77 and 155 to 158 and by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the provisions in the body of this Code shall not extend to any suit or proceeding in any Court of Small Causes established in the towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay:"
Section 40 is one of the sections which is applicable to a proceeding in a court of small causes established in the town of Calcutta. I shall now read Section 40 of the Code-
"Where a decree is sent for execution in an other State, it shall be sent to such Court and executed in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State."
According to the provisions of this section, therefore, generally speaking the decree is to be sent for execution in another State and executed 'in such manner as may be prescribed by rules in force in that State'. Order 21 Rule 5 of the Code is a provision which is a prescribed rule in force in this State. The said rule reads thus:--
"Where 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, where the Court to which the decree is to be sent for execution is situate is 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."
It is, therefore, clear that ordinarily and generally the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 for mode of transfer of a decree has got to be followed when a decree is sent by a court situate in another State to the State of Bihar. That being so, the decree ought to have been sent through the District Judge of Shahabad. But it is to be noticed that Section 8 of the Code also makes reference, for governing the proceedings in the court of small cau.ses established in the presidency towns, to the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, and Section 31 of that Act is to the following effect:--
"If the judgment-debtor under any decree or the Small Cause Court has not, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, moveable property sufficient to satisfy the decree, the Court may, on the application of the decree-holder, send the decree for execution-
(a) in the case of execution against immoveable property situate within such local limits--to the Madras City Civil Court or the High Court of Judicature at Fort William or Bombay, as the case may be:
(b) in all other cases--to any Civil Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such judgment-debtor, or any moveable or immoveable property of such judgment-debtor, may be found..
The procedure prescribed by the Code ot Civil Procedure for the execution of decrees by Courty other than these which made them shall be the procedure followed in such cases." Therein it is to be noticed that under Clause (b) the presidency small cause court has got jurisdiction and power to transfer to any civil court the decree for execution and there the procedure prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure for the execution of decrees shall be the procedure which would be followed in such cases. The specific and the special provision contained in Section 31 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act does not engraft the general rule provided in Order 21 Rule 5. It is one of the accepted canons of interpretation of statute that, if in the same field there is a special provision which is applicable as also there is a general provision, the latter would give way to the former. In that view of the matter, I hold that the transfer of the decree by the small cause court of Calcutta direct to the Munsif's court at Buxar was neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. The view which I have expressed finds support from a case of Kedar Nath Mana v. Jogendra Nath Das, 21 Cal WN (notes) clii (152): (AIR 1918 Cal 696).
3. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.