JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This Rule has been obtained by the judgment-debtor and raises a point of procedure. The Opposite Party obtained a decree against the Petitioner in the Small Cause Court. It was transferred to the Court of the third Munsif for execution. A certain property was purchased by the Opposite Party. The decree was then re-opened by the learned Judge in the Small Cause Court on a review application filed by the Petitioner under sec. 36 (6) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act. Instalments were granted. The Petitioner defaulted in the payment of the first instalment. The Opposite Party then obtained delivery of possession from the Court of the third Munsif of the property already purchased by him. The Petitioner then filed the present objection under sec. 47, C. P. C, on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to make an order without a fresh order for transfer of the decree. The objection was allowed by the Munsif but his decision has been reversed by the Subordinate Judge. The solution of the question ultimately depends on whether the sale has been set aside as a result of the proceedings taken to reopen the decree. The question is not free from difficulty as there is no specific provision in the section dealing with the matter. As the Opposite Party had not taken delivery of possession no question of making an order under sec. 36 Suresh Chandra Basak Vs. Benode Lal Pal, AIR 1943 Cal 628 . (c) or(e) arises. The opinion expressed by me in the case of Indra Sekhar Chakravarty v. Bidhumukhi Devi 48 C. W. N. 915 (1942). was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Basak Vs. Benode Lal Pal, AIR 1943 Cal 628 . As the sale by the Court of the third Munsif was intact no question of transferring the new decree for execution had arisen. All that was necessary on the default by the Petitioner was for the Opposite Party to apply for delivery of possession. 2. Whatever might have been the correct view of the law, the Small Cause Court Judge had given the direction in the reopened decree to the effect that on default by the Petitioner the Opposite Party would get possession of the property sold. 2. Whatever might have been the correct view of the law, the Small Cause Court Judge had given the direction in the reopened decree to the effect that on default by the Petitioner the Opposite Party would get possession of the property sold. As the Petitioner took no steps to have that decree modified by a superior Court, the executing Court was bound to execute it as it is. 3. The Rule is discharged. I make no order as to costs.