Judgment This is an appeal by the decree-holder in O. S. No. 781 of 1933, District Munsiff Court, Nellore, against the order of the District Judge, Nellore., dated 7th October, 1947, in A.S. No. 111 of 1947 on his file, setting aside the Kavali District Munsiff’s Order, dated 13th December, 1946, in E.P. No. 48 of 1946, in O. S. No. 781 of 1933, and dismissing the execution petition as barred by limitation, as the Order of the District Munsiff, Nellore, dated 27th January, 1936, in Exhibit P-5(a), directing simultaneous execution in his court as well as the District Munsiff Court, Kavali, had been passed without notice to the judgment-debtors and was illegal and would not serve as a step-in-aid of execution and save limitation regarding the subsequent execution petitions, including E.P. No. 48 of 1946, under the rulings in Gurudas Adbya v. Jandra Narain Batchi and others1 and L.H. Kanhere v. V.G. Virkhar and others2. I have perused the entire records, and heard elaborate arguments on both sides, as there is no direct decision of this court on the legal point involved, where the lower courts have given contradictory decisions. The facts were briefly these. The appellant had, on 24th January, 1934, got a decree for Rs. 2,640-8-0, on a letter executed by the 1st defendant, against both the defendants, together with costs of Rs. 338-3-0. As usual, his task began only with the decree. In spite of some twelve execution petitions, and the lapse of nearly 16 years, the appellant-decree-holder, has, admittedly, not recovered a pie. He. filed E.P. No. 530 of 1934 (Exhibit P-1) in the Nellore District Munsif Court on 6th April, 1934 for the arrest of the 2nd defendant. He was not found for arrest, and the execution petition was dismissed on 6th July, 1934. E.P. No. 177 of 1935 (Exhibit P-2) was filed on 26th January, 1935, in the District Munsif Court, Nellore, for transmitting the decree in the District Munsif Court, Kavali, for execution. The order for transmission was passed on 1st February, 1935. E.P. No. 204 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif, Kavali, was filed on 9th May, 1935 for attachment and sale of the 2nd defendant’s immovable properties. The immovable properties of the 2nd defendant were attached, but the execution petition was not pressed, and it was dismissed on 3rd August, 1936. E.P. No. 204 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif, Kavali, was filed on 9th May, 1935 for attachment and sale of the 2nd defendant’s immovable properties. The immovable properties of the 2nd defendant were attached, but the execution petition was not pressed, and it was dismissed on 3rd August, 1936. E.P. No. 357 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kavali, was filed on 25th July, 1935 for the attachment and sale of the 1st defedendant’s immovable properties. The immovable properties were attached and brought to sale on 17th February, 1936. As there were no bids, the execution petition was struck off on 20th February, 1936. Meanwhile, on 24th January, 1936, the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 147 of 1936 (Exhibit P-5) in the Nellore District Munsif Court praying for the attachment by prohibitory order, of the produce realised by the Receiver in O.S. No. 898 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudur. Along with this execution petition he filed also a petition E.P. No. 145 of 1936 (Exhibit P-5 (a)) for executing the decree simultaneously in the District Munsif Court, Nellore, and in the District Munsif Court, Kavali. Simultaneous execution was “permitted” by the District Munsif, Nellore, on 27th January, 1936 in Exhibit P-5(a) without issuing any notice to the judgment-debtor. But E.P. No. 147 of 1936, District Munsif Court, Nellore, came to nothing, and that execution petition was dismissed on 4th February, 1936. Thereafter, of course, the decree-holder filed execution petitions in both the courts, as he had been allowed to execute his decree simultaneously in both the courts. He filed E.P. No. 82 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nellore (Exhibit P-6) on 30th January, 1939, for attachment and sale of the movables of both the judgment-debtors. That execution petition was dismissed on 14th March, 1939 for non-payment of batta. The decree-holder filed E.P. No. 91 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kavali, on 16th February, 1939, for the attachment and sale of the 1st defendant’s movables. It was dismissed on 13th March, 1939 for non-payment of batta. The decree-holder then filed an unnumbered execution petition (Exhibit P-3) on 18th February, 1942 in the Nellore District Munsif Court for the attachment of the movables of the defendants. It was dismissed on 13th March, 1939 for non-payment of batta. The decree-holder then filed an unnumbered execution petition (Exhibit P-3) on 18th February, 1942 in the Nellore District Munsif Court for the attachment of the movables of the defendants. The Nellore District Munsif asked him for a non-satisfaction certificate from the District Munsif Court, Kavali, before proceeding with this execution petition So, the decree-holder filed E.A. No. 884 of 1942 in the District Munsif Court, Kaval for re-transmitting the decree to the Nellore District Munsif Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction. On 29th September, 1942, the District Munsif, Kavali, issued a certificate of non-satisfaction and re-transmitted the decree to the District Munsif ‘Court, Nellore, even though E.A. No. 884 of 1942 had been filed more than three years from the last order of the Kavali District Munsif, on 13th March, 1939, in E.P. No. 91 of 1939. The unnumbered E.P. of 1942 (Exhibit P-3) in the Nellore District Munsif Court was dismissed as “not pressed” on 26th September, 1942, since the non-satisfaction certificate had not been received by then. On 24th September, 1945, the decree-holder filed another execution petition (Exhibit P-4) in the District Munsif Court, Nellore, for the attachment of the moveable of the judgment-debtors. That execution petition was dismissed on 23rd April, 1946, as “not pressed”. On 23rd January, 1946, the decree-holder filed a petition E.A. No. 37 of 1946 (Exhibit P-7) in the District Munsif Court, Nellore, for the transmission of the decree once more to the District Munsif Court, Kavali, and for simultaneous execution. Permission for simultaneous execution was granted, and the decree was again transmitted to the District Munsif Court, Kavali. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed the present execution petition, E.P. No. 48 of 1946, in the District Munsif Court, Kavali, for attachment and sale of the moveables of the 1st defendant and for the arrest of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant raised three main contentions before the District Munsif, Kavali, namely, limitation, cessation of the attachment and right to scaling down of the decree debt. The 1st defendant raised three main contentions before the District Munsif, Kavali, namely, limitation, cessation of the attachment and right to scaling down of the decree debt. He urged that this execution petition was barred by time, as the order for simultaneous execution passed by the District Munsif, Nellore, on 27th January, 1936, under Exhibit P-5(a) was void as not having been made to “the proper court” and also because the District Munsif had not reserved this right when transmitting the decree to the Kavali Court or got back the decree before he passed the order, and that, in any event, the order was illegal and void under the above two rulings, of the Calcutta and Bombay High Courts, and no notice had gone to the judgment-debtors, before the order for simultaneous execution was passed, and that, even if it was not wholly void, it would enure only for just one execution petition and would never validate the subsequent execution petitions, Exhibits P-6 and P-3 filed in 1939 and 1942 in the Nellore District Munsif’s Court which were dismissed on 14th March, 1939 and 26th September, 1942, before the decree was re-transmitted to that Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction by the District Munsif, Kavali, and, so, E.P. No. 48 of 1946 would also be barred. The learned District Munsif overruled all these objections of the 1st defendant, and directed E.P. No. 48 of 1946 to proceed, as the 1st defendant had given up his objection that the attachment was not subsisting, leaving the appellant free to file a petition in the District Munsif Court, Nellore, for scaling down the debt under the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, in case he was entitled to do so, as he contended. The learned District Munsif considered that the order, Exhibit P-5(a), dated 27th January, 1936, permitting simultaneous execution did not merely enure for one execution petition, as contended by the 1st defendant, but for any number of execution petitions. He also refused to hold that the permission was void and of no effect to save limitation, and that the rulings in Gurudas Adhya v. Jnanendra Narain Bagchi1 and L.H.Kankere v. Virkar2 relied on by the 1st defendant’s counsel, would not have that effect, especially when there was no Madras ruling holding such an order passed without notice to be null and void and of no effect to save limitation. On appeal by the 1st defendant, the learned District Judge, while holding that the order, dated 27th January, 1936, was a “final order” within the meaning of Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act, and that the application for permitting simultaneous execution was entertainable by the Nellore District Munsif Court, and had been made therefore to the “proper court”, and that the order permitting simultaneous execution enured for all subsequent execution petitions, and not merely for just one petition, as contended by the 1st defendant’s counsel, held that the order under Exhibit P-5(a) was illegal, and null and void, and incapable of saving limitation regarding E.P. No. 48 of 1946 in view of the rulings in Gurudas Adhya v. Jnanendra Narain Bagchi1 and L.H. Kanhere v. Virkar2 as there were no rulings of this Court to the contrary. In that view, he dismissed E.P. No. 48 of 1946 as barred by “limitation.” The decree-holder has brought this second appeal. Mr. K. Umamheswaram, for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the order Exhibit P-5(a), dated 27th January, 1936, is enough to validate the subsequent execution petitions (Exhibits P-6, P-3, P-4, P-7 and E.P. No. 48 of 1946 filed in the Nellore and Kavali District Munsif Courts) and to save limitation, even if it is held to be irregular for lack of notice to the judgment-debtors and might have been set aside on application by the judgment-debtors. As I was disposed to agree with this contention, Mr. R. Ramamurthi Aiyar, for the 1st defendant, wanted to argue also on the points found against him by the learned District Judge, and he was allowed to do so. The first contention of Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar was that the Nellore District Munsif’s Court had no jurisdiction at all to entertain the petition [Exhibit P-5(a)] for simultaneous execution, on 24th January, 1936, as it had not reserved to itself the right to entertain such petitions when it transmitted the decree to the Kavali District Munsif on 1st February, 1935, and had not also got back the decree with a certificate of non-satisfaction by 24th January, 1936. He relied on the ruling of the Privy Council in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Bahadur3 and the Full Bench ruling of this Court in V. Srimanthu v. D. Venkatapayya4 and the rulings in P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar v. P.L. N.K.M. Lakshmanan Chettiar (dead)5 and Abdul Hafiz Saheb v. Abdul Sukkur Sahib6. He relied on the ruling of the Privy Council in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Bahadur3 and the Full Bench ruling of this Court in V. Srimanthu v. D. Venkatapayya4 and the rulings in P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar v. P.L. N.K.M. Lakshmanan Chettiar (dead)5 and Abdul Hafiz Saheb v. Abdul Sukkur Sahib6. I cannot agree. The ruling of the Privy Council in the Bobbili case3, was considered by a Bench of this Court consisting of Venkatasubba Rao and Reilly, JJ., in Subba Rao v. Ankamma7, on 2nd September, 1932, and was held to prohibit only an application to the Court which passed the decree, for sale of properties attached by the Court to which the decree had been transferred, without getting the decree re-transferred and without getting an order for simultaneous execution. It was held not to preclude an application by an assignee to the Court which passed the decree to recognise his assignment and allow simultaneous execution to be proceeded with. It was expressly held that the Court need not stay its hand till, the return of the decree and the receipt of the non-satisfaction certificate. So, the observation of a single Judge, Varadachariar, J., in Abdul Hafiz Saheb v. Abdul Sukkur Sahib6, on 20th August, 1937, that there is no reason to limit the powers of the Court to which a decree has been transferred for execution, and that, indeed, it is possible to construe the observations of the Judicial Committee in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Bahadur3, as depriving the original Court of jurisdiction of the right to execute its decree, once the decree has been sent to another Court for execution till the certificate under section 41 is received from the transferee Court, must only be regarded as an obiter, and, in any event, as not meant to, and as also incompetent to, treat the earlier Bench ruling in Subba Rao v. Ankamma7 that the original Court was not bound to wait for a certificate under section 41, as wrong. The Full Bench ruling in V. Srimanthu v. D. Venkatapayyai merely held that a Court cannot make a valid order for sale in execution unless at the time the order is made the property is within its territory and that a sale ordered otherwise would be a nullity, and that section 21, Civil Procedure Code, does not cover an objection going to the nullity of an order on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Bench ruling in Nagappa Chettiar’s case5, merely says that while an application can always be made to the Court which passed the decree for an order for re-transferring it and that such an application is a step-in-aid of execution and prevents limitation from running against a decree-holder, nevertheless, a Court to which the decree is sent for execution is the only Court which has seisin of the execution proceedings and that in such a case the Court which passed the decree has no jurisdiction to entertain an execution application unless concurrent execution has been ordered, or unless the proceeding in the Court to which the decree was sent has been stayed for the purpose of executing the decree in the first Court. So those rulings will not help the 1st defendant in his contention that an application for simultaneous execution cannot be made to the Court which passed the decree but has transferred it to another Court for execution and has not received it back with a certificate of non-execution. Indeed, the ruling of the Bench in Subba Rao v. Ankamma1 is clearly against him. The Bench rulings in Mahadum Beg Saheba v. M.J.Muhammad Meera Sahib2 and Muthurama Reddi v. Motilal Daga3, also take the same view as in Subba Rao v. Ankamma1 and are clearly against the 1st defendant’s contention. I am satisfied that, as the law stands in this state, a Court which has passed the decree can, despite its having transferred it for execution to another Court and not having received it back with a non-satisfaction certificate, entertain an application by the decree-holder for transfer of the decree to a third Court or an application for simultaneous execution, which can only be ordered by the Court passing the decree. The next contention of Mr. The next contention of Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar, for the 1st defendant, was that the fact that the decree-holder mentioned in his affidavit in Exhibit P-5(a) a particular purpose, and had his 1942 unnumbered execution petition dismissed as “not pressed” because the decree had not been re-transmitted with the non-satisfaction certificate, and had put in another petition for simultaneous execution (Exhibit P-7) on 23rd January, 1946, all showed that the District Munsif’s order, dated 27th January, 1936, enured only for one simultaneous execution petition in his Court. I cannot agree. The request made by the decree-holder in his petition for simultaneous execution, dated 24th January, 1936, was a general request and was not confined to one execution petition. The order of the learned District Munsif, dated 27th January, 1936, was also a general permission, and was not confined to just one execution petition. The decree-holder thereafter filed not one execution petition in the Nellore Court, but three execution petitions in 1939, 1942 and 1945. The affidavit in Exhibit P-5(a) only showed the occasion for making an application for simultaneous execution and cannot restrict the scope of either the request in the application or the order granting it. The non-pressing of the 1942. execution petition has nothing to do with the interpretation of the permission granted. Even if a party thought that he had to get the decree back with a certificate of non-satisfaction before proceeding with another execution petition, that will not affect the legal interpretation of an order like that in Exhibit P-5(a) by this Court. Besides, the Nellore Court might have wanted to satisfy itself that the Kavali Court had recovered nothing before proceeding with the simultaneous execution petition filed before it in 1942 for attachment of moveables. The fact that the decree-holder filed another petition, Exhibit P-7, for simultaneous execution, in 1946, is also irrelevant for our purpose, since the Kavali Court had returned the decree to the Nellore Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction on 29th September, 1942, and this fresh petition for re-transmission of the decree to it for execution, with a fresh permission for simultaneous execution, was necessary. The last contention of Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar was that the order, dated 27th January, 1936, was illegal and void and could not serve to save limitation as per the rulings in Gurudas Adhya v. Jnanendra Marain Bagchi4 and L.H.Kanhere v. Virkar5. I cannot agree. The last contention of Mr. Ramamurthi Aiyar was that the order, dated 27th January, 1936, was illegal and void and could not serve to save limitation as per the rulings in Gurudas Adhya v. Jnanendra Marain Bagchi4 and L.H.Kanhere v. Virkar5. I cannot agree. Those rulings merely held that an order for simultaneous execution was a judicial order and not an administrative order, and that care should be taken to see that there is not any hardship to the judgment-debtor, and so, notice should go to him as in the case of any judicial order, so that he may be heard on the point, and that an order passed without notice to him was illegal and deserved to be set aside so that a fresh order might be passed after hearing him. It will be noticed that the Civil Procedure Code does not require mandatorily a notice to the judgment debtor for ordering a petition for simultaneous execution as in the case of Order 21, rule 66. It is only a notice required under the rule of justice, equity and good -conscience, that no judicial order shall be passed without giving the party affected an opportunity of being heard. So, though an order passed without such notice to the judgment-debtor may be illegal, and deserving of being set aside, at the instance of the judgment-debtor, and the matter remanded for passing a fresh order after hearing him, it is not, in my opinion, a case where such an order will be void and of no effect to serve as a step-in-aid to save limitation. Illegal orders in execution petitions, like ordering execution to proceed against dead persons or against properties held to be not liable for attachment, have been held by Somayya, J., in Ayyanna Goundan v. Thandavan Chettiar1, to be quite valid as steps-in-aid to save limitation for subsequent execution petitions. So too, here, the illegal order in Exhibit P-5(a) will serve as a step-in-aid and save limitation regarding subsequent execution petitions including the present execution petition (E.P. No. 48 of 1946). In other words, it has got a mere irregularity for vitiating the order, and not a material irregularity making the order null and void. In cases of mere irregularity, the order will be valid till set aside unless prejudice to the other side is proved. In other words, it has got a mere irregularity for vitiating the order, and not a material irregularity making the order null and void. In cases of mere irregularity, the order will be valid till set aside unless prejudice to the other side is proved. In the present case, it has not caused the slightest prejudice to the judgment-debtors who have merrily gone on contesting further execution petitions and escaped paying a pie till now. So this irregularity is only a mere defect in procedure to be punished with deprival of costs, as costs are the supreme panacea for all procedural ills. It is enough to deny the appellant his costs throughout for this irregularity and laches, and I am ordering this. In the end, therefore, I allow this civil miscellaneous second appeal, and hold that E.P. No. 48 of 1946 is not barred by limitation, and set aside the lower appellate court’s order, dismissing the execution petition and direct the execution petition to proceed, but allow the judgment-debtors to file petitions in the District Munsif Court, Nellore, under the Madras Agriculturists’ Relief Act, for scaling down the decree debt, if they are so advised, and direct all the parties in the execution petition, and appeal suit and civil miscellaneous second appeal to bear their own costs, for the reasons already stated. Leave refused. K.C. ------ Appeal allowed.