JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. This is a decreeholder's, appeal against the concurrent judgments of the courts below refusing execution of the decree against immovable property when the decree was passed by the Small Cause Court of Bombay Presidency and the same was transferred to the District Judge, Jaunpur for execution. The District Judge, in turn, had transferred it to the Civil Judge for execution. The Civil Judge, Jaunpur on the basis of the case of Ramnatti v. Sarju 1966 A.W.R. 139=1966 A.L.J. 420, ordered that the decree under execution could not be executed against immovable property of the judgmentdebtor. It appeal (civil appeal No. 321 to 1966), the District Judge, Jaunpur upheld that order by his judgment dated December 10, 1966. Feeling aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed. Notice was issued to the respondent but he has not appeared nor he is represented by counsel. I have, therefore, heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Sri G.P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn by attention to the amendment made to Section 42, C.P.C. by U.P. Act No. XIV of 1970. The effect of this was that Section 42, as it stood originally, was restored. By the amendment of 1954 by U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1954, the section had been amended and it read as follows: "42. The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same power in executing such decree as the court which passed it. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of decree shall be punishable by such court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree, and its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself." The effect of that amendment was that the decree could not have been executed against immovable property because the Small Cause Court of Bombay Presidency could not have passed the decree in respect of immovable property. According to the latest amendment of 1970, Section 42 reads as follows: "42 (1). The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. According to the latest amendment of 1970, Section 42 reads as follows: "42 (1). The Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself. All persons disobeying or obstructing the execution of decree shall be punishable by such Court in the same manner as if it had passed the decree, and its order in executing such decree shall be subject to the same rules in respect of appeal as if the decree had been passed by itself. (2)................... It thus reproduces the language of the original Section 42, C.P.C. it is now certainly possible for the Civil Judge to execute the decree against immovable property. It is significant that under Section 31 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act, the decree could have been transferred for execution against immovable property to a regular Court and it was, therefore, rightly transferred to the District Judge, who in turn transferred the same for execution to the Civil Judge. The case reported in 1966 A.L.J. 420 was based on the interpretation of Section 42, C.P.C. as it stood after the amendment by the Act of 1954. In this connection reliance was placed on some earlier cases in which also the amended Section 42 as it then stood was interpreted. Those authorities do not hold good in view of the amendment of Section 42 by Act No. XIV of 1970. There can be no doubt that the amendment in the procedural law can be given effect to retrospectively. In the present case the execution was still left open. In. this connection reference may be made to the case of Anantgopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay (2) and the case of Maharaja Dharmendra pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (3). In the result the appeal is allowed. The orders of the courts below are set aside and the case is sent back to the executing court for proceeding according to law. Costs shall be easy throughout.