Norris and Beverley, JJ.
1. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money and brought his suit in the Munsif's Court. By an order of the District Judge the suit was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge. It was tried by that officer, and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. The decree-holder subsequently applied for execution of his decree in the Subordinate Judge's Court. By an order of the District Judge the execution proceedings were transferred to the file of the Munsif. The judgment-debtor objected to this order, but the Munsif decided against him, holding that the plea of jurisdiction could not stand. Upon appeal the District Judge held that the objection of the judgment-debtor on the question of jurisdiction was a good one. The District Judge's attention was called to the case of Balaji Ranchoddas , which has been cited before us, and with reference to that case he observes that there are contradictory rulings.
2. We have to observe that this point has been raised several times in this Court, and it has been constantly held that there is no power to transfer execution proceedings, that the power is only to transfer a suit, and not to make a transfer of a suit after the suit has once been commenced.
3. Our attention has been called by the learned pleader for the appellant to a decision of the Allahabad High Court, which is certainly in his favour. If this were a point of law, having regard to the conflicting decisions, we should feel it our duty to refer it to a Full Bench ; but it is a pure matter of practice, and no inconvenience, as far as we can see, will arise from our continuing to follow the course adopted by the decisions of this Court.
4. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.