Though the decision, in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Peda : (1912)23MLJ236 was affirmed by Maharajah of Bobbili v. Narsaraju Peda Baliara 36 Ind. Cas. 682; 39 M.P 640; 31 M.L.J. 300; 18 Bom. L.R. 909; 14 A.L.J. 1129; 20 M.L.T. 472; 24 C.L.J. 478; 4 L.W. 558; (1916; 2 M.W.N. 541; 21 C.W.N. 162; 1 P.L.W. 26; 43 I.A. 238 the grounds of the decisions, if carefully scrutinised, are different. The former decision seems to imply, unless a decree has bsen sent back by a transfer Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction the parent Court cannot execute the decree, unless an order was passed permitting simultaneous executions. But this is not the ground of the decision of the Judicial Committee. They held that an application for sale of the property attached by the transfer Court cannot be made to the parent Court and the application cannot be considered to be made to a proper Court. This is the interpretation made by the Punjab High Court in Firm, Hira Lal-Anant Ram v. Firm Sheru Mal-Chaina Mal 89 Ind. Cas. 958; A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 113 and we entirely agree with the observations in that judgment. We do not agree with the decision in Rangaswami Shetti v. Seshappa Manjappa 68 Ind. Cas. 508; 47 B.P 56; 24 Bom.L.R. 788; A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 359. We observe that to a certain extent, the Bombay High Court itself has taken a different view in Lang v. Jasvantlal Hathichand : AIR1926Bom271 . There it was held that the parent Court can withdraw execution and take other steps.
In the present case, we agree with the Subordinate Judge that the application of 13th July, 1921, was a valid application and was a step-in-aid of execution.
The appeal is dismissed with Costs.