JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, J. -This first appeal is directed against an order dated 4th of January, 1977 passed by the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria, upholding the objection raised by the judgment-debtor that the execution application filed by the decree-holder before him could not be entertained by him and that the same could be entertained only by the Civil Judge, Deoria. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 30th November, 1970 the appellant obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-against the respondents, from the Court of the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Deoria. The appeal against that decree was dismissed on 2nd of August, 1974. Before the appellants could put their decree into execution, the U. P. Higher Judicial Service (Abolition of the Cadre of the Civil and Sessions Judges) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules) came into force on 8th of May, 1974. Thereafter in the year 1976 the appellants applied before the Third Additional District Judge, Deoria, for execution of the decree obtained by them from the Court of the Temporary Civil Judge, as affirmed by the appellate court. The judgment-debtor objected to the execution of the decree by the said court on the ground that the decree in question had not been passed by that court and that it had no jurisdiction to execute the same. The objection raised by the judgment-debtor prevailed and the Third Additional District Judge held that the decree in question could be executed only by the Civil Judge, Deoria. Being aggrieved, the decree-holder has come up before this Court. The only, question involved in this appeal is as to whether the decree passed by a Civil and Sessions Judge, which has been affirmed in appeal, can, after coming into force of the 1974 Rules, be executed by the Third Additional District Judge. 3. According to, the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree can be executed either by the court which passed it (which term includes within its ambit the court of first instance) or by a court to which it is transferred for execution in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code. 3. According to, the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree can be executed either by the court which passed it (which term includes within its ambit the court of first instance) or by a court to which it is transferred for execution in accordance with the provisions contained in the Code. Section 37 of the Code defines the expression 'Court which passed a decree thus;- "The expression 'Court which passed a decree or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include. (a) Where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and (b) Where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit". Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Court of the Third Additional District Judge, which was brought into existence after coming into force of the 1974 Rules, was in substance the same court as the Court of the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge which had originally passed the decree. The only result of coming into force of the 1974 Rules was that the nomenclature of the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge was changed into 'Court of the Additional District Judge. Accordingly, the case fell under clause (a) of Section 37 of the Code and the Court of the Third Additional District Judge, being the court of first instance, was fully competent to execute the decree. The case of the objector, on the other hand, is that after coming into force of the 1974 Rules, the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge ceased to exist and it cannot be said that the Court of Third Additional District Judge is the same court as the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge which had passed the decree. In the circumstances, the case fell within clause (bl of Section 37 and as at present the suit in which the decree had been passed could be instituted in the court of the Civil Judge, it is that court alone which would have the jurisdiction to execute the decree. 4. Clauses (2) and (3) of the 1974 Rules run thus :- "2. With effect from the date of commencement of these rules, the cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges shall stand abolished and the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service shall, with effect from the said date, consist of the posts of District and Sessions Judges and Additional District and Sessions Judges only. 3. (1) Upon the abolition of the cadre of Civil and Sessions Judges, permanent and temporary posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges equal in number of the permanent and temporary posts, respectively, of Civil and Sessions Judges existing immediately before the date of commencement of these rules, shall stand created with effect from the said date, and the officers holding the posts of Civil and Sessions Judges immediately before the said date shall become Additional District and Sessions Judges and be designated accordingly. (2) An officer who is confirmed on the post of Civil and Sessions Judge before the commencement of these rules, shall, with effect from the date of such confirmation, be deemed to be confirmed on the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge". A perusal of the aforementioned clauses shows that after 8th of May, 1974 the cadre of the Civil and Sessions Judges, as had been provided in the U. P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, then in force, stood abolished and in its place a new cadre of the Additional District and Sessions Judge was created. Thereafter no Post of Civil and Sessions Judge remained in existence. The constitution of the Civil Courts in the State is governed by Section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 which runs thus ;- "There shall be the following classes of Civil Courts under this Act namely;- (1) the court of the District Judge, (2) the court of the Additional Judge, (3) the court of the Civil Judge, and (4) the court of the Munsif. The court presided over by the Additional District Judge falls within the ambit of the court of the Additional Judge and it cannot be equated with the court of the Civil Judge. It is true that in this State the officers presiding over some of the courts of Civil Judges and over courts of Additional Judges and District Judges were being empowered to try Sessions Cases under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such officers were known as Civil and Sessions Judge. Additional District and Sessions Judge and District and Sessions Judge and the court over which they presided were known as the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge, Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge and Court of District and Sessions Judge. However, for the purposes of civil jurisdiction they remained Civil Judges, Additional Judges and District Judges and the court over which they presided remained the Courts of Civil Judges, Additional Judges and District Judges. The effect of 1974 Rules merely was that all such Civil Judges, on whom the power of Sessions Judge had been conferred, became Additional Judges and the court presided over by them became the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, that is, the Court of Civil and Sessions Judge which for the purposes of Civil litigation fell in the third category of Section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act was abolished and in its place the court falling in the second category of that section was created. The Court of Additional Judges, contemplated by Section 3, exercises jurisdiction similar to that of the Court of District Judge and not that which is similar to that of Civil Judge. Accordingly, the Court of Additional District Judge cannot possibly be equated with the Court of Civil Judge or with that of Civil and Sessions Judge and it cannot be said that the 1974 Rules merely resulted in changing the nomenclature of the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge while retaining its identity. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the court below that the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge, before which the suit had been filed and which originally passed the decree in this case, ceased to exist and the present case fell under clause (b) of Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am, therefore, inclined to agree with the court below that the Court of the Civil and Sessions Judge, before which the suit had been filed and which originally passed the decree in this case, ceased to exist and the present case fell under clause (b) of Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court of the Third Additional District Judge could execute the decree .only if, after coming into force of the 1974 Rules, the present suit could have been instituted before it. Normally, the suits of the value of over Rs. 10,000/-are filed before the Civil Judges. Accordingly, the suit in which the decree sought to be executed has been passed could be instituted before the Court of Civil Judge alone and not before the Court of Third Additional District Judge. In the circumstances, the Court below was right in holding that it was the Court of the Civil Judge which alone had the jurisdiction to execute the decree. 5. In the result, I find no merit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed with costs.