Edward Chamier, C.J.@mdashThis is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Gaya dismissing an application for execution of a decree on the ground that it is barred by limitation. For the purpose of disposing of this appeal it is only necessary to mention that the decree was passed by the Court of the 1st Munsif of Gaya on February 25th, 1911. The first application for execution was made on June 28th, 1913, to the Court of the 1st Munsif. The Munsif who passed the decree was invested with jurisdiction to try suits up to Rs. 2,000. After the date of the decree and before the date of the first application for execution another Munsif was appointed to the Court, who was not invested with jurisdiction to try cases over Rs. 1,000. The District Judge has taken the view that the first application for execution was not made to the proper Court, apparently because at the time of the application the presiding officer would not have had jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed. This view is untenable if the decisions in Latch man Pundeh v. Maddan Mohun Shye 6 C. 513 ; 7 C.L.R. 52 ; 5 Ind. Jur. 414 ; 8 Ind. Dec. 333 and Kartick Nath Pandey v. Tilukdhari Lal 15 C. 667 ; 7 Ind. Dec. 1028 are correct. The CPC has been amended frequently since these decisions were pronounced and a new Code has been passed in place of the Code of 1882, but the provision which was construed in the decisions referred to has never been touched nor have either of the decisions so far as we are aware been overruled, though there are cases in which they have been distinguished in the Calcutta High Court. In my opinion, we ought to follow those two decisions and if we follow them we must hold that the first application for execution made on June 28th, 1913, was made to the proper Court and that the present application for execution which was made on June 9th, 1915, was made within time. The decisions to which we have referred do not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned District Judge. I would allow this appeal set aside the order of the District Judge and restore the order of the Subordinate Judge with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.
Jwala Prasad, J.
2. I agree.
