1. In this case it appears that an application was put in to the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum for execution of a. decree. The Deputy Commissioner's Office appears to have registered this application and then forwarded it by post to the Subordinate Judge of that district who was at that time sitting in Purulia. When the case came before the Subordinate Judge at Purulia, notice was issued under Section 248, C.P.C., to the judgment-debtor. This action apparently was all that was desired by the decree-holders. The judgment-debtor appeared and put in an objection in which he pleaded, among other matters, that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to. proceed with the execution. This was rejected by the Subordinate Judge and he passed the following order: 'Judgment-debtor's objection disallowed. No further steps. Case dismissed for want of prosecution.'
2. Against this order the judgment-debtor thought fit to appeal to the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur; and the Judicial Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to deal with the application and that no further proceedings should be taken in the Court of the Subordinate Judge.
3. The decree-holders appeal to this Court and it certainly appears to us that the order of the learned Judicial Commissioner cannot be supported.
4. Under Section 13 of the Bengal, North-Western Provinces and Assam Civil Courts Act, if the same local jurisdiction is assigned to two or more Subordinate Judges the District Judge may assign to each of them such civil business as he thinks fit. In this case, we are told that no such order assigning civil business has been passed. It follows that both the Subordinate Judges have concurrent jurisdiction and were both equally entitled to deal with an application for execution arising in the District of Singhbhum.
5. The learned pleader for the respondent has urged that the execution case having been dismissed, it is quite unnecessary for us to interfere with the. order of the Judicial Commissioner but when he himself has thought fit to appeal against the order, of the Subordinate Judge, we do not think it lies in his mouth to complain if we set aside the erroneous order of the Judicial Commissioner, dated the 12th December 1907, reversing the order of the Sub-ordinate Judge.
6. The result is that the appeal is allowed and the order of the Judicial Commissioner set aside. The Subordinate Judge of Singhbhum will proceed to deal with the case in the ordinary way.
7. We assess the hearing fee at five gold mohurs.