JUDGMENT :- The respondents obtained a decree in the Court of the Munsiff, Agra, on 14-2-62 for Rs. 3,654.37 against the first appellant firm, represented by appellants 2 and 3 as its proprietors. They got the decree transferred to the District Court, Manipur, for execution in Execution Case No. 4 of 1962. On 5-6-1962 the District Judge, at first ordered the issue of notice to the appellants to show cause why execution should not proceed and fixed 26-6-62 for return of notice. Then on application by the decree-holders, the District Judge passed another order on 7-6-62, changing the date of hearing to 16-6-62. The decree-holders then made another application to the District Judge for ordering attachment alleging that the J. Ds. were disposing of their properties. On that application, the District Judge -passed another order on 14-6-62 to issue attachment returnable by 30-6-62. 2. On 16-6-62, the appellants appeared before the District Judge and objected to the execution of the decree on various grounds. They stated that the decree was obtained without making all the partners of the firm as parties and hence the decree was defective, that the alleged second partner, who is the 3rd appellant herein was impleaded as a major though he was in actual fact a minor and was not even a partner and that when once notice had been issued to show cause against execution for 16-6-62, the Court should not have ordered attachment before the notice herein date ( (sic) the date mentioned therein?) But all these objections were overruled and execution was ordered to proceed by the Court by its order D/- 16-6-62. Then the appellants filed Judicial Misc. Case No. 37 of 1962, for allowing them to give security of certain immovable properties of the firm. But that was rejected by the District Judge as only the second appellant Murarilal Agarwala, one of the partners of the firm had executed the bond. Thereafter, third party security was given by the appellants and the execution has been stayed pending the result of the present appeal to this Court. 3. But that was rejected by the District Judge as only the second appellant Murarilal Agarwala, one of the partners of the firm had executed the bond. Thereafter, third party security was given by the appellants and the execution has been stayed pending the result of the present appeal to this Court. 3. Now in appeal, the appellants first of all contended that the decree against the firm of Ratiram Lakshmi Narayan was not executable as all the partners of the firm have not been made parties and as the 3rd appellant, who was not a partner and who was a minor was impleaded to represent the firm in the suit. But this objection is not of any avail. Under Order 30 R. 1 C. P. C., suit against a firm can be filed in the name of the firm and service of summons can be made at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on upon any person having at the time of service, the control of management of the partnership business. It is not contended that this Murarilal Agarwala is not a partner of the firm or that he had no control or management of the firm and that service of summons was not made as provided under Order 30 Rule 3, C. P. C. If the 3rd appellant Niranjanlal Agarwala, claims himself to be a minor and not a partner of the firm and does not want to be bound by the decree, he should move the Court which passed the decree. It cannot affect the decree against the partnership firm and the Executing Court cannot go into that question at all. 4. It was next contended that the District Judge should not have ordered attachment of the properties of the firm after he had issued notice to show cause against the execution. This objection would have been valid if the application for execution was made more than one year after the date of the decree. In such a case notice to show cause against execution would be obligatory under Order 21 Rule 22 C. P. C. Even in such a case, Order 21 Rule 22 (2) provides that for reasons to be recorded, the Court can issue process of execution if it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice. In the present case, after the Court had ordered issue of notice to show cause against execution which was really unnecessary, the decree-holder pointed out to the Court that the J. Ds. were trying to dispose of their properties and that urgent issue of order of attachment was necessary. In such a case, there is nothing to prevent the Court from issuing the process of attachment. 5. Next, it was pointed out that even though the decree was only for Rs. 3,000/- and odd, the properties shown for attachment in the execution petition were worth more than a lakh of rupees and my attention was drawn to Order 21 Rule 17 (4) proviso, stating that in the case of a decree for the payment of money, the value of the property attached shall, as nearly as may be, correspond with the amount due under the decree. But this question really does not arise at present as no property has been attached so far, because the appellants gave 3rd party security for payment of the decree. Of course, if it becomes necessary to attach any property, the lower Court would keep in mind the provisions of Order 21 Rule 17 C. P. C. 6. Another point, which was raised at the time of argument for the first time in this Count was that the District Judge should not have taken up the execution himself as it was a decree of the Munsiffs Court, Agra and that the District Judge should have transferred the decree for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Manipur. It was pointed out that by the District Judge himself taking up the execution the appellants have lost a right of appeal under Section 47 C. P. C. to the District Judge. My attention was also drawn to Section 15 C. P. C. which provided that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it and it was argued that this provision under Section 15 C. P. C. would also apply to execution petitions by virtue of Section 141 C. P. C., which provides that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. This is an objection which should have been taken before the District Judge himself and not for the first time in this Court. However, I am not going to dismiss this appeal on that ground alone. I am satisfied that there are no merits in the argument itself. This is a decree passed by the Munsiffs Court at Agra. The procedure relating to execution is provided under Section 38 C. P. C., i. e., a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. This decree has been transferred and sent for execution to the District Court at Manipur. Thus it is the District Court, Manipur which can execute the decree. Order 21 Rule 8 C. P. C., however, provided that in such a case, the decree may be executed by the District Court itself or it may be transferred for execution to any Subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. In the face of Section 38 and Order 21 Rule 8 C. P. C., Section 15 C. P. C. read with Section 141 C. P. C. will not apply to execution proceedings. The procedure under Section 15 C. P. C. will apply only as far as it may be made applicable to other proceedings. Thus, where Section 38 and Order 21 Rule 8 C. P. C. provide the manner in which the District Court is to proceed on receipt of a decree for execution by transfer from another Court, Section 141 C. P. C. will not apply and the District Court cannot refuse to execute a decree itself where the decree-holder applies for execution to that Court. A decree-holder can apply under Order 21 Rule 8 C. P. C. for execution to the District Court itself or he may request that Court to transfer the decree for execution to any Subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. Where the execution petition is filed in the District Court itself, the District Court cannot refuse execution. Even at that stage it may transfer the decree to a Subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction, But it cannot be said that the District Court itself has no power to execute the decree. In fact, until the District Court transfers the decree for execution to a Subordinate Court, the decree holder cannot file an application for execution in any other Court than the District Court. In fact, until the District Court transfers the decree for execution to a Subordinate Court, the decree holder cannot file an application for execution in any other Court than the District Court. It is true, of course, that if the District Court decides to execute the decree itself, the parties may lose a right of appeal to the District Court and a right of second appeal to the High Court. But that cannot be avoided. It affects both parties equally. 7. It will be seen from Order 21 Rule 5 that a decree-holder may apply for transfer of the decree to a Court in another District and in such a case, the decree has to be sent to the District Court of that District in which the decree is to foe executed. In such a case, the District Court has to send it for execution to the Court to which the transfer was asked for. If in the present case, the decree-holder had applied for transfer to the Subordinate Judges Court in Imphal, the District Court may not have the power to execute the decree itself, but would have had to send it to the Subordinate Court. But here, the decree was sent for execution to the District Court itself. In that case, it is Order 21 Rule 8 C. P. C. which will apply and the District Court had every jurisdiction to execute the decree. Hence, the District Court was right in executing the decree itself. There are thus no merits at all in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with the costs of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.