V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) A very strictly technical argument is advanced in this petition allegedly pertaining to the jurisdiction of an Executing Court and thus bringing the petition under the scope of sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) so as to request this Court to exercise the power under that section. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff who is opponent herein filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana for recovery of some amount which was more than Rs. 15 704 After the bifurcation of the Mehsana District and Gandhinagar District jurisdiction of village Randheja went to the Narol Court (Ahmedabad Rural) and therefore that suit was transferred to that Court and was numbered as Special Civil Suit NO. 34 of 1978. This suit was decreed by the Narol Court. At the request of the decree-holder the Narol Court transferred the decree to the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Kadi District Mehsana as the defendant resided at Kundal Taluka Kadi and thereafter the Kadi Court issued a notice for attachment. When this notice was received by an application Ex. 18 the petitioner contested the notice and challenged the jurisdiction of that Court to execute the decree. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said application holding that the objection on the ground of the Gujarat Judicial Courts Laws (Amendment) Act 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not tenable. I am referring to only this ground because various grounds were raised in the objection application and the learned Civil Judge Kadi by his order dated 1 over-ruled those objections and ordered the execution to proceed according to law. I am considering the observations of the learned Civil Judge Kadi so far as the main dispute before me is concerned ( 3 ) IT is the submission of Mr. Viresh C. Desai learned Advocates for the petitioner that the learned Civil Judge Junior Division Kadi has committed an error in merely brushing aside the objections without considering the provisions of the Act. According to Mr. Desai the Act came into force on 1-1-1980. By this Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge Junior Division was raised from Rs. 10 0 to Rs. According to Mr. Desai the Act came into force on 1-1-1980. By this Act the pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Judge Junior Division was raised from Rs. 10 0 to Rs. 20 0 There is no dispute on behalf of the opponent so far as these two positions are concerned viz. that the Act came into force on 1-1-1980 and the pecuniary jurisdiction was raised from that day. ( 4 ) NOW according to sub-sec. (3) of sec. 11 of the Act all applications for the execution or enforcement of a decree or order of a specified Court passed immediately before the day on which the Act comes into force and all other applications arising out of such decree or order shall be made to and disposed of by the Court as if this Act had not been passed. It is therefore the submission of Mr. Desai that because this decree which was passed on 6-3-1979 was passed before the day on which the Act came into force. Therefore according to Mr. Desai this application for execution or enforcement of a decree has to be disposed of by that Court as if the Act had not been passed. But there is a provision under the Code which provides that a Court which has passed a decree can transfer the decree to any other Court for execution. This provision is under sec. 39 of the Code. It reads:"39 (1) The Court which passed a decree may on the application of the decreeholder send it for execution to another Court of competent jurisdiction. (A) if the person against whom the decree is passed actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court. or (B) if such person has not property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree sufficient to satisfy such decree and has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of such other Court or (C) if the decree directs the sale or delivery of immovable property situate outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which Passed it or (D) if the Court which passed the decree considers for any other reason which it shall record in writing that the decree should be executed by such other Court. (2) The Court which passed a decree may of its own motion send it for execution to any subordinate Court of competent jurisdiction. (4) For the Purpose of this section a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it such Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit in which such decree was passed". We are concerned with sub-secs. (1) and (3) of this sec. 39 of the Code. Now in sub-sec. (1) the last words of competent jurisdiction are added by Amending Act of 1976 meaning thereby this amendment was present when the application for transfer wag given to Narol Court. It should be noted that the application to Narol Court for transferring the decree was submitted somewhere prior to 26-11-1979 and the order to transfer the Execution Application 41/80 was passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Narol on 26-11-1979. Therefore it is the submission of Mr. Desai that on that day the provisions of amended sub-sec. (1) of sec. 39 of the Code were in force and therefore transfer should have been made to a Court having competent jurisdiction meaning thereby the Court of Civil Jades Senior Division Mehsana and not the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division Kadi. He also argued that under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 39 of the Code which is also an amendment by Amending Act of 1976 it is provided that a Court shall be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction if at the time of making the application for the transfer of decree to it such Court would have jurisdiction to tty the suit in which such decree was passed. ( 5 ) IT is the further submission of Mr. Desai that so far as the provisions of the Act are concerned after 1-1-1980 the Civil judge Junior Division would have jurisdiction to try such a suit and therefore in view of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 39 of the Code after that day the Civil Court Junior Division would have jurisdiction to execute the decree. But it is his submission that under sub-sec. (3) of sec. (3) of sec. 39 of the Code after that day the Civil Court Junior Division would have jurisdiction to execute the decree. But it is his submission that under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 39 of the Code it is necessary that at the time of making an application for transfer of that decree to that Court (Kadi Court that Court (Kadi Court) should have jurisdiction and therefore as on 26-11-1979 the Kadi Court had no jurisdiction the order of transfer was not proper. ( 6 ) NOW it is a fact that the decree was transferred to Kadi Court for execution and it was lying there. It is also a fact that the decree-holder again filed an application for execution to Kadi Court and the order for notice for attachment is passed on that subsequently submitted execution application. But the fact remains that the Kadi Court would have no jurisdiction to proceed with the execution application unless the decree is transferred to it from Narol Court which has passed the decree. This is a strictly technical point. But the fact cannot be ignored that the Kadi Court is seized with the jurisdiction when the execution application is filed and decree was already transferred to it. The only question that arises is as to what would be the effect of the order of transfer of decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Narol on 26 when the Act was not made operative and the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 39 of the Code would not permit transfer to the Junior Division Court at Kadi. ( 7 ) NOW as things stand according to rule 5 or Order 21 of the Code if a decree is transferred for execution to another Court then the Court to which the decree is sent for execution if it has no jurisdiction to execute the decree shall send it to the Court having such jurisdiction. So in order to obviate the so-called technical flaw the matter would come to an end the moment the Kadi Court would transfer that decree to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana because at the time when the transfer order was made by Narol Court only the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana had jurisdiction. So in order to obviate the so-called technical flaw the matter would come to an end the moment the Kadi Court would transfer that decree to the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana because at the time when the transfer order was made by Narol Court only the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Mehsana had jurisdiction. Would it therefore be in the interest of justice to ask the litigant to undergo such an exercise if to-day the Civil Court at Kadi has jurisdiction to execute the decree ? ( 8 ) UNDER sec. 99-A of the Code there is a clear provision to the following effect:"99-A Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sec. 99 no order under sec. 47 shall be reversed or substantially varied on account of any error defect or irregularity in proceeding relating to such order unless such error defeet or irregularity has prejudicial affected the decision of the case". It is not in dispute that this order was under sec. 47 of the Code. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that by exercising jurisdiction to issue notice only the Kadi Court has committed any error which has prejudicial affected the decision of the case meaning thereby any prejudice is caused to the petitioner. the decree against him could have been either executed by Mehsana Court or the Kadi Court. There is no prejudice caused to him so far as the decision of that case is concerned. ( 9 ) THIS Court in Vasantrao Laxmanrao Sahane v. Sanghvi Amritlal Becharlal 7 Gujarat Law Reporter 840 had an occasion to observe as to when the High Court would exercise its jurisdiction under sec. 115 of the Code as under:"the High Court is not bound to interfere in revision under sec. 115 Civil Procedure code in all cases in which it is found that the subordinate Court has acted without jurisdiction or failed to exercise Jurisdiction or acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The High Court will exercise its revisional powers only in aid of justice and not merely to give effect to a technicality which would not further the ends of justice. The High Court will exercise its revisional powers only in aid of justice and not merely to give effect to a technicality which would not further the ends of justice. Where the High Court finds that substantial justice has been done between the parties by the order of the subordinate Court the High Court will not interfere with such order merely because the case comes within any of the three clauses of sec. 115". In the instant case it is not in dispute that the Kadi Court has jurisdiction to execute the decree now. When the order was passed by Narol Court it had no jurisdiction to transfer it to the Kadi Court. Can it be said that this illegality or an action without jurisdiction is such as would frustrate the ends of justice? Certainly not. On the contrary there is no necessity to interfere with the order either of Narol Court to Kadi Court in aid of justice. In order to further the ends of justice on the contrary it would be proper that this Court should not interfere into this order. ( 10 ) IN view of this I think that there is no point in this revision petition so as to prompt this Court to interfere by exercising the revisional jurisdiction under sec. 115 of the Code. I make a note of appreciation for the assistance given by Shri S. M. Shah and Miss V. P. Shah in deciding this matter as they were present in the Court when the arguments were advanced by Advocates of both the parties. ( 11 ) IN the result the revision petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Stay granted is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs in this petition. Application dismissed. .