Precepts

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava vs Mohit Bhargava

   Supreme Court of India 20 Apr 2007 Binding (Supreme Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a decree holder seeks to execute a decree against immovable property lying outside the territorial jurisdiction of the executing court, the executing court is mandatorily bound (not discretionary) to transfer the decree to the court within whose local limits the property is situated, unless the property constitutes an estate or tenure that falls within the jurisdiction of multiple courts under Order XXI Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This mandate arises from Section 39(4) of the Code as amended by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 (effective 1.7.2002), which withdrew the earlier discretionary power and imposed a duty on executing courts to desist from proceeding against property outside their jurisdiction. However, interim restraint orders (such as Mareva injunctions or freezing orders) can be validly passed and maintained by a court even if the property is outside its jurisdiction, as these are orders of restraint and not orders of final execution, and do not attract the jurisdictional limitation of Section 39(4).

   On this section: Permits issuance of percept by executing court to court having jurisdiction over extra-jurisdictional property for actual attachment; used for interim attachment under Order XXI Rule 54.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.