Judgment :- 1. The question raised in this revision is a simple one. Is the court which is to transmit a decree to another court for the purposes of execution, competent to decide whether the judgment debtor is entitled to the benefits under Act 17 of 1977? 2. The facts are these:- A decree for money has been passed by the Munsiff's Court, Palai on 28-6-1966 and allowed the judgment debtor to realise the same by sale of the decree schedule properties. During the time when the decree was passed, the properties described in the decree were situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Palai. Subsequently the areas comprising of those properties have been annexed to the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Ettumannur. On 9-12-1974, the decree holder has filed E.P.No.153 of 1974 before the Munsiff's Court, Palai with a specific prayer that the decree may be transmitted to the Munsiff's Court, Ettumannur for execution. The judgment debtor contended in that E.P. that he is entitled to the benefits of Act 11 of 1970. After recording some payments made in the said execution proceedings, it is seen that E.P.No.153/1974 stood dismissed on 10-2-1977 as "no step taken; E.P. dismissed". Subsequently on 17-12-1980, the decree holder has filed the present E.P. before the Munsiff's Court, Palai with two specific prayers. The first is that the decree and certificate may be sent to the Munsiff's Court, Ettumannur for the purpose of execution and the second is that the order dismissing the earlier O.P. dated 10-2-1977 may be treated as a ministerial order. The judgment debtor who opposed that E.P. has contended in his counter, inter alia, that he is a "debtor" and the decree debt is a "debt" coming within the purview of Act 17 of 1977 and hence the entire decree debt should be deemed to have been discharged by virtue of S.3 of the said Act. The second contention is that the execution is barred by limitation. During the pendency of the said E.P. in the Munsiff's Court, Palai, the judgment debtor had filed E A. No. 110 of 1981 for the issue of a Commission to inspect the properties mentioned therein in order to assess the net income derivable from those properties. The second contention is that the execution is barred by limitation. During the pendency of the said E.P. in the Munsiff's Court, Palai, the judgment debtor had filed E A. No. 110 of 1981 for the issue of a Commission to inspect the properties mentioned therein in order to assess the net income derivable from those properties. As no objection was filed by the decree holder, the said E.A. was allowed on 18-6-1981 and the judgment debtor was required to deposit the commission bata of Rs. 150/-. On 19-6-1981, the decree holder has filed an application for review of the earlier order appointing the Commissioner. The learned Munsiff has dismissed the said petition on 16-7-1981. This revision is filed against that order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when a petition is filed for transfer of the decree to another court for the purpose of execution, the function of the transferor court is not to embark upon an enquiry into the different contentions or claims raised by the judgment debtor and instead those disputes should be relegated to be gone into by the transferee court. S.39 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for the transfer of decrees by the court which passed the decree to the court where the immovable properties sought to be sold are situated. Order XXI R.6 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the procedure for transferring the decree as aforesaid. That rule is quoted: "The Court sending a decree for execution shall send (a) a copy of the decree; (b) a certificate setting forth that satisfaction of the decree has not been obtained by the execution within the jurisdiction of the Court by which it was passed, or, where the decree has been executed in part, the extent to which the satisfaction has been obtained and that part of the decree remains unsatisfied; and (c) a copy of any order for the execution of the decree, or if no such order has been made, a certificate to that effect". 4. A reading of the said Rule indicates that the transferor court has to decide whether the decree has been satisfied or not or whether it has been partly satisfied or partly unsatisfied. Only on determination of the above aspects the transferor court will be in a position to issue a certificate contemplated in the said Rule. 4. A reading of the said Rule indicates that the transferor court has to decide whether the decree has been satisfied or not or whether it has been partly satisfied or partly unsatisfied. Only on determination of the above aspects the transferor court will be in a position to issue a certificate contemplated in the said Rule. If the decree is not capable of execution, either on account of the execution being barred by limitation or on account of any supervening legislation, the transferor court is not obliged to transmit such a decree to another court. In such circumstances a non-executable decree is virtually a dead decree. Therefore it is only reasonable and proper that the transferor court holds an enquiry to decide it for itself as to whether the decree is executable or not. If as a matter of fact, the judgment debtor is a debtor and the decree amount a "debt" coming within the purview of Act 17 of 1977, S.3 thereof operates and the decree debt will be deemed to have been discharged with the coming into force of that Act. If the court holds that point in favour of the judgment debtor, it affects the executability of the decree and hence the transfer of the same can be withheld or declined. Therefore the transferor court has the jurisdiction and I may say the duty to decide the said questions before it decides as to whether the transmission of the decree as prayed for is necessary or not. 5. In Krishnan Nair v. Philip (1958 K.L.T. 357), Varadaraja Iyengar, J has observed that "it is the duty of the court which passed the decree to satisfy itself that the decree it is transferring is a live decree which is still capable of execution ...If the decree is dead for other reasons the court which passed it should in normal circumstances decide the matter; the transferor court must, in passing the order to send the decree for purposes of execution to the transferee court, be deemed to have decided against any limitation so far as the further execution of the decree was concerned". I am in respectful agreement with the above observations. I therefore hold that the order under attack does not warrant any interference. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Send back the records without delay.