Skip to content


Bandoo Krishna Kulkarni Vs. Narsingrao Konherrao Deshpande - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 76 of 1913
Judge
Reported in(1914)16BOMLR527
AppellantBandoo Krishna Kulkarni
RespondentNarsingrao Konherrao Deshpande
Excerpt:
.....proceedings as the court of wards was a party :-;that the subordinate judge had jurisdiction to proceed with the execution notwithstanding that after the decree the court of wards had become a party to the execution proceedings. -..........j. but we find that the facts here cannot be distinguished in any material particular from the facts in gopal apaji v. keahavrao konherrao (0), where a bench of this court decided that the court which passed the decree had jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, notwithstanding that after the decree the court of wards had become a party to the execution proceeding. and we see no reason to doubt that that case was correctly decided, nor why, by giving a different decision here on the same facts, we should encourage uncertainty and a conflict of opinion. we, therefore, think that the present appeal must be allowed, and the court below be directed to proceed with the execution of the decree. the appellant must have the costs of this appeal.
Judgment:

Beaman, J.

1. The only question arising in this First Appeal is whether the Court of the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to proceed with the execution of its own decree. When the suit was instituted no Government servant was a party to it and it was not until after the decree that the Court of Wards was added. In terms, therefore, Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act does not apply. But it is contended inferentially with reference to Section 37 of the Civil Procedure Code that ;where a party is added in execution, who, had he been a party when the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted, would have deprived the Court of its jurisdiction, that Court ceases to have jurisdiction for all purposes of executing its own decree. That contention gained some colourjrom s. j. But we find that the facts here cannot be distinguished in any material particular from the facts in Gopal Apaji v. Keahavrao Konherrao (0), where a bench of this Court decided that the Court which passed the decree had jurisdiction to proceed with the execution, notwithstanding that after the decree the Court of Wards had become a party to the execution proceeding. And we see no reason to doubt that that case was correctly decided, nor why, by giving a different decision here on the same facts, we should encourage uncertainty and a conflict of opinion. We, therefore, think that the present appeal must be allowed, and the Court below be directed to proceed with the execution of the decree. The appellant must have the costs of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //