Question

Where territorial jurisdiction of a court is transferred after passing a decree, an execution application may be filed

• A. In the court which had passed the decree
• B. In the Court to which territorial jurisdiction was transferred only
• C. In either of the court under a or b
• D. In any court in India

Hint:

For execution of decrees, remember that Section 37 CPC gives an inclusive definition of the "court which passed a decree." This ensures that a decree-holder is not left without a remedy if the original court's jurisdiction changes.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Section 37 CPC defines the Court which passed a decree broadly for execution purposes, and that definition is the key to this question.

1. Original court alone: Under clause (a), a court retains its character as the court which passed the decree, so it stays competent to execute it.
2. Transferred-jurisdiction court alone: Under clause (b), a court that has newly acquired territorial jurisdiction is also deemed the court which passed the decree, because it would now be the proper forum to try the suit afresh.
3. Either court: Since the statutory fiction in Section 37 applies to both courts simultaneously rather than replacing one with the other, both remain competent at the same time, giving the decree-holder a genuine choice.
4. Any court in India: No provision extends execution competence beyond these two specifically identified courts to the entire country.

Reading clauses (a) and (b) of Section 37 together, rather than in isolation, shows that competence is shared rather than shifted, so the correct answer is in either of the court under a or b.

Answer 2

This question is best resolved by considering why the law preserves the original court's power even after territorial jurisdiction shifts, rather than moving strictly through the statutory text.

1. In the court which had passed the decree: If jurisdiction only migrated to the new court and the original court lost all power, a decree-holder who had already begun proceedings there could be needlessly forced to restart elsewhere. The law avoids this hardship by letting the original court continue to act.
2. In the Court to which territorial jurisdiction was transferred only: At the same time, since that area is now administered by a different court, denying that court power to execute the decree would be equally impractical, particularly since the judgment-debtor's assets are likely located there.
3. In either of the court under a or b: Recognising both concerns together, the law sensibly gives the decree-holder the convenience of approaching whichever of the two courts is more practical, rather than forcing a single rigid choice.
4. In any court in India: Extending this convenience to every court in the country would go far beyond addressing the specific problem of a territorial transfer and would undermine the orderly administration of execution proceedings.

Balancing convenience and continuity in this way confirms that the correct answer is in either of the court under a or b.