Holding

An executing court cannot execute against immovable property outside its jurisdiction unless the execution is authorized by Order XXI Rule 3 (or a similar specific provision); restraint orders like freezing or Mareva injunctions are permissible even when the property or person is outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Summary

The decree holder obtained a final decree against the judgment debtor in a partnership dissolution suit filed in the District Court of Gwalior. While executing the decree, the court issued restraint orders (19 Mar 2003 and 7 Jul 2003) preventing a third‑party occupant and a bank from handing over possession and documents of a building in Indore, and later ordered the sale of that building (6 Apr 2004) despite the property being outside its territorial limits. The judgment debtor objected, invoking Section 39 read with Order XXI Rule 3 of the CPC; the executing court rejected the objection. The High Court set aside the sale order, transferred execution to the Indore court, but upheld the earlier restraint orders. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that, under the 2002 amendment to Section 39, a court cannot execute against immovable property outside its jurisdiction unless the case falls within Order XXI Rule 3 (or similar specific provisions); otherwise the decree must be transferred. However, restraint orders such as freezing or Mareva injunctions are within the court’s jurisdiction even if the property or person is outside. Consequently, the sale order was invalid, the High Court’s transfer was proper, and the restraint orders stood. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether an executing court may order the sale of immovable property situated outside its territorial jurisdiction under Section 39 CPC and Order XXI Rule 3/48/50.
Whether restraint orders (freezing, Mareva injunction) issued by the executing court are valid when the property/person is outside its jurisdiction.
Effect of the 2002 amendment (Section 39(4)) on the discretion of the executing court to proceed with execution outside its jurisdiction.
Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to interfere with the earlier restraint orders.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 136, s. 38, s. 39(4), s. 42, s. 46

Subjects

jurisdictionexecution of decreeimmovable propertySection 39 CPCOrder XXI Rule 3Mareva injunctionfreezing orderpartnership dissolutiontransfer of executionAmendment Act 22 of 2002

Judgment

..,S MOHIT BHARGAVA A
v.
BHARAT BHUSHAN BHARGAVA AND ORS.

APRIL 20, 2007

[PK BALASUBRAMANYAN AND S-8. SINHA, JJ .] B

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
~

s,39(4)-Jurisdiction of executing court-Held: Executing court cannot
proceed against property situated outside its jurisdiction-Jurisdiction- c
Territorial jurisdiction.

Judgment/Order:

Freezing order/Mareva injunction-Restraint orders passed by
executing court-JD not challenging these orders-Decree holder seeking D
sale of property belonging to J~bjection by JD that executing court has
~ " no jurisdiction to order sale, as property is situated outside its jurisdiction-
Rejected-JD challenging this as also restraint orders-High Court refusing
to interfere with restraint orders-Correctness of-Held: Restraint orders
were within the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree and were E
in the nature offreezing order or a mareva injunction and an order akin to
an Anton Piller order, orders which could be issued even if property is
outside the jurisdiction of the court-As JD never bothered to question those
orders when they were passed, High Court not in error in refusing to interfere
with those orders.
F
The decree holder and the grand father of the judgment debtor among
others, were partners in a firm. A notice of dissolution was issued by some of
the partners to the grand father of the judgment debtor. Ultimately, the decree
holder filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the
partnership and for rendition of accounts. The court passed a preliminary
decree declaring that the partnership firm stood dissolved and directed that G
1- accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities.

Tf!e grand father executed a will bequeathing the properties to his grand
son, the judgment debtor. On 1911.1985, the grand father of the judgment
397 H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A debtor died. The final decree proceedings continued and the Commissioner
submitted his report after scrutinizing the accounts. The District Court,
Gwalior, passed a final decree in the suit for dissolution whereby the judgment
debtor was held liable to pay certain sums to the plaintiff and other partners.
The decree holder, filed an execution petition in the District Court of Gwalior.
B Meanwhile, the will executed by the grand father designating the judgment
debtor as the legatee was probated for execution of the decree.

The decree holder moved the executing court for an injunction
restraining the person holding the building said to have been bequeathed to
tht judgment debtor by his grand father, from handing over possession of the
C same to the judgment debtor and from handing over the documents of title to
him. He also sought a direction restraining the bank holding an account of
the estate from permitting the judgment debtor to operate the accounts. The
executing court passed an order on 19.3.2003 directing the occupant of the
building as well as the bank not to transfer to the judgment-debtor the
properties enumerated in the list submitted by the decree holder. The person
D holding the building moved the executing court praying that he be relieved
from the responsibility of managing the property. On 7.7.2003, the executing
court, after taking notice of the documents produced by the occupant of the ;, •
building concerned, directed that the documents be kept in safe custody of
the court. An application was moved by the decree holder that he had received
E an offer for the purchase of the building in question, which was situate at
Indore, and praying that the said property may be sold by way of auction and
the amount received by apportioned among the decree holder and other
partners.

Though the judgment debtor had not challenged the orders dated
F 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, He raised an objection in the executing court that
tt.e executing court lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale of the
property situate in Indore lying outside its territorial jurisdiction. The
application was made under s.39 read with Order XXI Rule 3 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. The judgment debtor also filed an independent objection to
the prayer of the decree holder for sale of the property at Indore. On 6.4.2004
G the executing court rejected the objections from the judgment debtor holding
that it had territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the execution. It also passed .)
an order directing that the house at Indore be sold by public auction after due
publicity.

Feeling aggrieved by the last order and belatedly feeling aggrieved by
H
MOHITBHARGA VAv. BHARATBHUSHANBHARGA VA 399
the earlier orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, the judgment debtor A
approached the High Court. The High Court held that the executing court
and the District Court at Gwalior, lacked territorial jurisdiction to continue
the execution especially in respect of properties outside its jurisdiction or to
order sale of building at Indore and consequently set aside the order dated
6.4.2004 and transferred the execution to the concerned court at Indore for
proceeding with the execution. But the High Court repelled the challenge to
B
the earlier orders of restraint dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the
executing court at Gwalior. Feeling aggrieved by the non-interference with
the orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, the judgment debtor has approached
this Court Feeling aggrieved by the upholding of the objection of the judgment
debtor to jurisdiction, the decree holder has come up to this Court. C
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The court which passed the decree is entitled to execute the
decree. This is clear from S.38 CPC which provides that a decree may be
executed either by the court which passed it or by the court to which it is sent D
for execution. S.42 CPC indicates that the transferee court to which the
> -' decree is transferred for execution will have the same powers in executing
that decree as if it had been passed by itself. A decree could be executed by
the court which passed the decree so long as it is confined to the assets within
its own jurisdiction or as authorized by Order XXI Rule 3 or Order XXI Rule
48 CPC. But when the property sought ~o be proceeded against, is outside the E
jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree acting as the executing
court, there was a conflict of views earlier, some courts taking the view that
the court which passed the decree and which is approached for execution
cannot proceed with execution but could only transmit the decree to the court
.,, having jurisdiction over the property and some other courts taking the view F
that it is a matter of discretion for the executing court and it could either
proceed with the execution or send the decree for execution to another court.
But this conflict was set at rest by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 with effect
form 1.7.2002, by adopting the position that if the execution is sought to be
proceeded against any person or property outside the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the executing court, nothing in S.39 of the Code shall be deemed G
1- to authorise the court to proceed with the execution. In the light of this, it is
not a matter of discretion for the court either to proceed with the execution of
the decree or to transfer it for execution to the court within the jurisdiction
of which the property is situate. [Para 6) (405-B-F)
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union ofIndia, (2005) 6 S.C.C.
344, referred to.

2. An execution against immovable property lying outside the
jurisdiction of the executing court is possible in terms of order XXI Rule 3
CPC which governs a case where the particular item of immovable property,
B forms on estate to tenure situate within the local limits of jurisdiction of two
or more courts, and one of those courts is approached for execution of the
decree against that property. In a case where Order XXI Rule 3 has no '-
application, the position seems to be that if a decree holder wants to proceed
against a property situate outside the jurisdiction of the court which passed
C the decree, he has to get the decree transferred to the appropriate court for
execution on moving the executing court in that behalf. Whatever doubts there
might have been earlier on this question, must be taken to have been resolved
by the introduction ofsub-section (4) ofS.39 CPC which is a mandate to the
executing court to desist from proceeding against a property situate outside
its jurisdiction, unless it be a case coming under Order XXI Rule 3 CPC.
D [Para 7) (406-B-DJ

3. In the case on hand, the property that is sought to be sold in execution
).. .
of the decree for dissolution is not a property the partnership. It is not a
partnership asset held by the court at Gwalior or within the jurisdiction of
the court at Gwalior. Order XXI Rule 50 CPC is, therefore, not attracted.
E What is sought to be done by the decree holder is to seek the sale of a property
belonging to the judgment debtor so as to realise the fruits of his decree.
Since that property lies outside the jurisdiction of the court at Gwalior, the
executing.court was not correct in over ruling the objection if the judgment
debtor regarding the absence of jurisdiction in the Gwalior court to order
F sale of the property outside its jurisdiction. The High Court was, therefore,
justified in interfering with that order and in transferring the decree to the
court having jurisdiction over the property that is sought to be proceeded
against by the decree holder. There is, therefore, no infirmity in that part of
the order of the High Court sought to be challenged by the decree holder.
(Para 8) (406-E-GJ
G
4. There is no merit in the challenge of the judgment debtor to the
refusal of the High Court to interfere with the orders dated 19.3.2003 and
7.7.2003. First of all, the judgment debtor had not challenged those orders at
the appropriate time and had allowed them to operate until he chose to
H challenge them while challenging the rejection of his objection to jurisdiction
MOHITBHARGAVAv. BHARATBHUSHANBHARGAVA 401

~)'.. raised later. By order dated 19.3.2003 what the executing court did was, to A
direct a third party, who had subsequently acceded to the jurisdiction of the
executing court, not to handover possession of the building in question and
the documents concerned, to the judgment debtor. It is seen that the third
person submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and surrendered the
documents in his possession to the executing court and prayed to that court
that he be relieved from the responsibility of managing the property in the
B
circumstances stated by him in his application. It was in that context that the
~ .. executing court passed another order dated 7.7.2003 that the documents
.. produced by the third party be kept in safe custody of the court These two
orders are certainly within the jurisdiction of the court which passed the
decree since they are only orders of restraint being issued to a person from c
handing over a property in his possession to the judgment debtor along with
the concerned documents and keeping the documents in safe custody. They
are in the nature of a "freezing order" or a "Mareva injunction" and an order
akin to an Anton Piller order, orders that can be issued even if the property
or the person concerned is outside the jurisdiction of the court. In the
circumstances, especially since the judgment debtor never bothered to question D
those orders as and when they were passed, the High Court was not in error
~ .
' in refusing to interfere with those orders. But since the High Court has
quashed the order dated 6.4.2004 and directed the transfer of the decree to
the court at Indore, the direction dated 11.5.2004 by the court at Gwalior for
sale of the house at Indore by public auction must necessarily fall to the ground. E
Only to that extent, if at all, a clarification is needed. It will be open to the
decree holder, now that the decree has been transmitted to the court at Indore,
to move an application in the executing court at Indore for sale of the property
in question.
(Para 9) (406-H; 407-A-F)
......- F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2078 of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2006 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in Writ Petition No. 3627 of2005.

WITH G
-!- C.A. No. 2079 of2007.

Mukul Rohtagi, Sushil Kumar Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhania, Puneet
Jain, Chiristi Jain, Sanjay Dwivedi and Ashok Mathur for the Appellant.
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 5 S.C.R.

A Respondent 10 & 11 in-person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.

B I. While the judgment debtor challenges the order of the High Court in
a petition filed by him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the
extent it rejects his prayers, the decree holder has also challenged the same
order to the extent it upheld an objection of the judgment debtor. The decree
.-
holder and the grand father of the judgment debtor among others, were ..
partners in a firm. A notice of dissolution was issued by some of the partners
c to the grand father of the judgment debtor. Ultimately, the decree holder filed
a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the partnership and
for rendition of accounts. On 27.4.1981 the court passed a preliminary decree
declaring that the partqership firm stood dissolved with effect from 20.6.1978
and directing that accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities. A
receiver who had been appointed pending the suit was directed to continue.
D
2. The father of the judgment debtor pre-deceased the grand father of ., .
the judgment debtor. It is said that on 26.3.1985, the grand father executed
a will bequeathing the properties to his grand son, the judgment debtor. At
the relevant time, the judgment debtor, the legatee, was a minor. Provisions
E were made regarding the management of the properties during the minority
of the judgment debtor. On 19.11.1985, the grand father of the judgment
debtor died. The final decree proceedings continued and the Commissio~er
submitted his report after scrutinising the accounts on 27.8.2002. On 29.11.2002,
the District Court Gwalior, passed a final decree in the suit for dissolution.
Under the final decree, the judgment debtor was liable to pay to the plaintiff ...,,
F a sum of Rs.6,66.292.50 and a total sum of Rs.10,83,757/- to other partners and
a sum of Rs.5,000/- as his share of fees to the Commissioner. According to
the judgment debtor, he has filed an appeal against this final decree, but due
to objections raised by the Registry of the High Court regarding the court fee
payable, further orders are awaited in the appeal on that question.
G
3. On 2.1.2003, the decree holder, the plaintiff in the suit, filed an
execution petition in the District Court of Gwalior for execution of the decree. -~

In other words, the execution petition was filed in the court which passed the
decree. Meanwhile, it is said that the will executed by the grand father
designating the judgment debtor as the legatee was probated. On 19.3.2003,
H the decree holder moved the executing court for an injunction restraining the
MOHITBHARGAVA v. BHARATBHUSHANBHARGAVA [BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.] 403

person holding the building said to have been bequeathed to the judgment A
debtor by his grand father, from handing over possession of the same to the
judgment debtor and from handing over the documents of title to him. He
also sought a direction restraining the bank holding an account of the estate
from permitting the judgment debtor to operate the accounts. The executing
court passed an order on 19.3.2003 directing the occupant of the building as B
well as the bank not to transfer to the judgment-debtor the properties
enumerated in the list submitted by the decree holder. The person holding
the building moved the executing court praying that he be relieved from the
responsibility of managing the property. He also produced certain documents
in the executing court with a prayer that he be relieved of his obligations. On
7.7.2003, the executing court, after taking notice of the documents produced C
by the occupant of the building concerned, directed that the documents be
kept in safe custody of the court. On 26.7.2003, an application was moved
by the decree holder submitting that he had received an offer for the purchase
of the building in question, which was situate at 14, Bakshi Colony, Indore,
and praying that the said property may be sold by way of auction and the
amount received be apportioned among the decree holder and other partners. D

. )\
Though the judgment debtor had not then and there challenged the orders
dated 19 .3 .2003 and 7. 7.2003, he now raised an objection in the executing
court that the executing court lacked territorial jurisdiction to order the sale
of the property situate in Indore lying outside its territorial jurisdiction. The
application was made under Section 39 read with Order XXI Rule 3 of the E
Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The judgment debtor also filed
an independent objection to the prayer of the decree holder for sale of the
property at 14 Bakshi Colony, Indore. On 6.4.2004 the executing court rejected
the objections from the judgment debtor. It held that it had territorial
jurisdiction to proceed with the execution. It also passed an order directing
that the house at No.14, Bakshi Colony, Indore be sold by public auction after F
due publicity. Feeling aggrieved by the last order and belatedly feeling
aggrieved by the earlier orders dated 19 .3 .2003 and 7. 7.2003, the judgment
debtor approached the High Court originally by way of a revision under
Section 115 of the Code, but on its being held that a revision is not maintainable,
later by way of a motion under. Article 227 of the Constitution of India G
challenging all the orders. The High Court held that the executing court, the
District Court at Gwalior, Jacked territorial jurisdiction to continue the execution
especially in respect of properties outside its jurisdiction or to order sale of
building No. 14 Bakshi Colony, Indore and consequently set aside the order
dated 6.4.2004 and transferred the execution to the concerned court at Indore
for proceeding with the execution. But the High Court repelled the challenge H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A to the earlier orders of restraint dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003 passed by the
executing court at Gwalior. Feeling aggrieved by the non-interference with the
orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003, the judgment debtor has approached this
Court. Feeling aggrieved by the upholding of the objection of the judgment
debtor to jurisdiction, the decree holder has come up to this Court.

B 4. We shall first deal with the objection of the decree holder to the
transfer of the execution to the court at Indore having jurisdiction over the
property sought to be brought to sale. The decree holder who appeared in
person as also the counsel who was appearing on his behalf in Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7742 of2006 argued that Section 39(4) of
the Code as amended in 2002, was not attracted since this was not a case to
C which Section 39(1) was applicable. It was contended that the court which
passed the decree had the jurisdiction to execute the decree and the decree
holder had approached that court for execution of the decree. There was no
defect in jurisdiction in seeking to enforce the decree through the court which
passed the decree. It was submitted that the decree was being executed by
D the present court at Gwalior only because of the abolition of the court before
which the execution petition was originally filed and the High Court
misunderstood the factual position while coming to the conclusion that Section
39(4) was attracted. On behalf of the judgment debtor it was pointed out that A •
though normally it is correct to say that the court which passed the decree
has the jurisdiction to execute the decree, the moment the decree holder
E sought to execute such a decree against property lying outside the jurisdiction
of that court, Section 39(4) of the Code was attracted and the court was
obliged to transfer the decree for execution to the proper court. Section 42
of the Code was referred to. Counsel further contended that earlier, in terms
of Section 39(1) of the Code, a discretion was vested in the court, either to
proceed with the execution of the decree or to transfer the same to another
F court as understood by some of the decisions. There was a conflict of judicial
opinion. The legislature had therefore stepped in with an amendment in the
year 2002 curtailing that discretion and introducing sub-section (4) in Section
39 of the Code making it clear that any attempt of the court to proceed with
the execution against a property outside the jurisdiction of that court, would
be one without authority and this legislative intent had been properly
G understood by the High Court when it transferred to the decree to another
court. Both sides brought to our notice Salem Advocate Bar Association,
TN. v. Union ofIndia, [2005] 6 S.C.C. 344 with particular reference to paragraphs
22 to 24 dealing with Section 39 of the code.

5. In that decision, clarifying the fields of operation of Order XX! Rule
H 3, Order XXI Rule 48 and Section 39 of the Code, this Court stated:
MOHITBHARGAVA v. BHARATBHUSHANBHARGAVA [BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.] 405
"Section 39 does not authorise the court to execute the decree outside A
its jurisdiction but it does not dilute the other provisions giving such
power on compliance with the conditions stipulated in those provisions.
J ..
Thus, the provisions, such as, Order 21 Rule 3 or Order 21 Rule 48
which provide differently, would not be affected by Section 39(4) of
the Code."
B
6. There cannot be any dispute over the proposition that the court
which passed the decree is entitled to execute the decree. This is clear from
Section 38 of the Code which provides that a decree may be executed either
by the court which passed it or by the court to which it is sent for execution.
Section 42 of the Code indicates that the transferee court to which the decree
is transferred for execution will have the same powers in executing that decree C
as if it had been passed by itself. A decree could be executed by the court
which passed the decree so long as it is confined to the assets within its own
jurisdiction or as authorised by Order XX! Rule 3 or Order XXI Rule 48 of
the Code or the judgment debtor is within its jurisdiction, if it is a decree for
personal obedience by the judgment debtor. But when the property sought
to be proceeded against, is outside the jurisdiction of the court which passed D
the decree acting as the executing court, there was a conflict of views earlier,
• f some courts taking the view that the court which passed the decree and
which is approached for execution cannot proceed with execution but could
only transmit the decree to the court having jurisdiction over the property and
some other courts taking the view that it is a matter of discretion for the E
executing court and it could either proceed with the execution or send the
decree for execution to another court. But this conflict was set at rest by
Amendment Act 22 of 2002 with effect from I. 7.2002, by adopting the position
that if the execution is sought to be proceeded against any person or property
outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the executing court, nothing in
Section 39 of the Code shall be deemed to authorise the court to proceed with F
the execution. In the light of this, it may not be possible to accept the
contention that it is a matter of discretion for the court either to proceed with
the execution of the decree or to transfer it for execution to the court within
the jurisdiction of which the property is situate.

7. Pending a suit, the court approached with the suit, may have G
jurisdiction to order attachment of a property even outside its jurisdiction. In
execution, under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code, it may also have jurisdiction
to order attachment of the property prohibiting the judgment debtor from
transferring or charging the property in any way when it exercises its jurisdiction
over the judgment debtor though not over the property itself. It could :n such
a case issue a percept in terms of Section 46 of the Code and thereupon, the H
4()6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 5 S.C.R.

A court to which the percept is sent, has to actually attach the property in the
manner prescribed. Section 136 of the Code provides for an order of attachment
in respect of a property outside the jurisdiction of the court and sending the ,. ....
order of attachment to the district court within whose local limits the property
sought to be attached, is situate as provided for therein. But Section 136
B clearly excludes execution of decrees from within its purview. An execution
against immovable property lying outside the jurisdiction of the executing
court is possible in tenns of order XXI Rule 3 of the Code which governs a
case where the particular item of immovable property, fonns one estate or .-
tenure situate within the local limits of jurisdiction of two or more courts, and •
one of those courts is approached for execution of the decree against that
C property. In a case where Order XXI Rule 3 has no application, the position
seems to be that if a decree holder wants to proceed against a property situate
outside the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree, he has to get
the decree transferred to the appropriate court for execution on moving the
executing court in that behalf. Whatever doubts there might have been earlier
on this question, must be taken to have been resolved by the introduction
D of sub-section (4) of Section 39 of the Code which is a mandate to the
executing court to desist from proceeding against a property situate outside
its jurisdiction, unless it be a case coming under Order XXI Rule 3 of the
Code.

E 8. In the case on hand, the property that is sought to be sold in
execution of the decree for dissolution is not a property of the partnership.
It is not a partnership asset held by the court Gwalior or within the jurisdiction
of the court at Gwalior. Order XXI Rule 50 of the Code is, therefore, not
attracted. What is sought to be done by the decree holder is to seek the sale
of a property belonging to the judgment debtor so as to realise the fruits of
F his decree. Since that property lies outside the jurisdiction of the court at y
Gwalior, the executing court was not correct in over ruling the objection of
the judgment debtor regarding the absence of jurisdiction in the Gwalior court
to order sale of the property outside its jurisdiction. The High Court was,
therefore, justified in interfering with that order and in transferring the decree
to the court having jurisdiction over the property that is sought to be
G proceeded against by the decree holder. We, therefore, see no infinnity in that
part of the order of the High Court sought to be challenged before us by the
decree holder.

9. Now coming to the challenge of the judgment debtor to the refusal
H of the High Court to interfere with the orders dated 19.3.2003 and 7.7.2003,
MOHITBHARGAVAv.BHARATBHUSHANBHARGAVA[BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.) 407
we find no merit in it. First of all, the judgment debtor had not challenged A
those orders at the appropriate time and had allowed them to operate until
he chose to challenge them while challenging the rejection of his objection
to jurisdiction raised later. Of course, his argument is that once it is found
that the court has no jurisdiction to proceed, the orders passed by it earlier
should also automatically fall to the ground. We cannot agree. By order
dated 19.3.2003 what the executing court did was, to direct a third party, who B
had subsequently acceded to the jurisdiction of the executing court, not to
handover possession of the building in question and the documents concerned,
to the judgment debtor. It is seen that the third person submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court and surrendered the documents in his possession to
the executing court and prayed to that court that he be relieved from the
responsibility of managing the property in the circumstances stated by him C
in his application. It was in that context that the executing court passed
another order dated 7. 7.2003 that the documents produced by the third party
be kept in safe custody of the court. These two orders are certainly within
the jurisdiction of the court which passed the decree since they are only
orders of restraint being issued to a person from handing over a property in D
his possession to the judgment debtor along with the concerned documents
and keeping the documents in safe custody. They are in the nature of a
"freezing order" or a "Mareva injunction" and an order akin to an Anton Piller
order, orders that can be issued even if the property or the person concerned
is outside the jurisdiction of the court. In the circumstances, especially since
the judgment debtor never bothered to question those orders as and when E
they were passed, we are of the view that the High Court was not in error
in refusing to interfere with those orders. But since the High Court has
quashed the order dated 6.4.2004 and directed the transfer of the decree to
the court at Indore, the direction dated 11.5 .2004 by the court at Gwalior for
sale of the house at No.14, Bakshi Colony, Indore by public auction must
necessarily fall to the ground. Only to that extent, if at all, a clarification is F
needed. It will be open to the decree holder, now that the decree has been
transmitted to the court at Indore, to move an applicati<m in the executing
court at Indore for sale of the property in question.

I0. In the result, the challenge by both sides to the order of the High
Court is rejected except to the extent of the clarification as above regarding G
~.
the order dated 17.12.2000.

11. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed subject to the above clarification.
However, there will be no order as to costs.

D.G. Appeal dismissed. H