Judgment :- KoShy, J. Revision Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E. P. No. 234 of 1994 in A. R. C. No. 1058 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff s Court, Hosdurg. Respondent is the decree-holder in the said Execution Petition. The Execution Petition was filed by the respondent under Order 21 Rules 66, 72 and 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure for realising the decree debt by sale of immovable property. The decree sought to be executed is an award for a sum of Rs. 26,081/- with future interest, passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hosdurg in A. R. C. No. 1058 of 1990 under S.70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Under S.76 of the Kerala C-op. Societies Act read with R.72 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, an award made under S.70 of the Act, if not carried out on a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as the decree of such court. S.76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act reads as follows: "Every order made under sub-s.(2) of S.68 or under S.75 every decision or award made under S.70, every order made by the liquidator under S.73 and every order made by the Tribunal under S.82, S.84, S.85 or S.86 and every order made under S.83 shall, if not carried out a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf, be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as the decree of such Court; or (b) where the order is for the recovery of money, be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of public revenue due on land". When notice was served on the petitioner several objections were raised regarding maintainability of the petition. Overruling the above, it was held in the impugned order dt.11.8.1995 that Execution Petition is maintainable. Even though several grounds were raised, now only two grounds are pressed by the petitioner and other grounds were given up. 2. When notice was served on the petitioner several objections were raised regarding maintainability of the petition. Overruling the above, it was held in the impugned order dt.11.8.1995 that Execution Petition is maintainable. Even though several grounds were raised, now only two grounds are pressed by the petitioner and other grounds were given up. 2. The first ground is that under S.38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only a decree can be executed either by the Court which passed the decree or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. In the instant case, the decree sought to be executed before the court below is not one sent for execution. Since the Assistant Registrar has passed the order, it is not an executable decrees. This question was not raised before the lower court. Apart from the above, in view of the clear provisions under S.76(a) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, an award of the Tribunal on a certificate signed by the Registrar be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and it can be executed in the same manner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. Dealing provisions in S.7 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will take care of the situation. 3. The second ground is that at the time when the execution petition was filed Munsiff 's Court has got jurisdiction to try suits upto Rs. 15,000/-. Since the principal amount is more than Rs. 20,000/- in this case the Munsiff 's Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. S.76(a ) says that on a certificate issued by the Registrar, an award shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court. It was contended that such court means such a competent Court and therefore, the Court should be having territorial jurisdiction as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. The above objection was overruled by the learned Munsiff as it is not stated in S.76(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act that Court, which executes the award, should have pecuniary jurisdiction. This is disputed by the petitioner. 4. Respondent herein support the order of the learned Munsiff with the aid of various decisions. The above objection was overruled by the learned Munsiff as it is not stated in S.76(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act that Court, which executes the award, should have pecuniary jurisdiction. This is disputed by the petitioner. 4. Respondent herein support the order of the learned Munsiff with the aid of various decisions. In Nandalal Ganguli v. Nrityakali Devi (AIR 1926 Calcutta 853), the Calcutta High Court while analysing S.6 of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act held that orders can be executed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes as pecuniary jurisdiction is not limited. S.5 of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act provides as follows: "The Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta shall, on application, execute any order passed by the Court on appeal as if it was a decree made by himself. Therefore, it is specifically mentioned that Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court of Calcutta can execute the decree. If in the Co-operative Societies Act it is provided that the award, can be executed only by a Munsiff Court, perhaps the ratio of mis decision would apply. It is specifically stated under S.5 of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act that only Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Calcutta can execute a decree passed under the above Act. That Section of the Calcutta Improvement (Appeals) Act does not in any way limit the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Calcutta. But under S. 76(a ) all Munsiff Courts are not vested with jurisdiction for execution. It only says "shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court". It is contended by the petitioner that Court means competent court and such Court can execute a decree in the same manner means that it should be a decree which is capable of passing by the same Court. Such Court means competent court which should have pecuniary jurisdiction as well as territorial jurisdiction to pass a decree and to implement the above decree. 5. The next decision cited by the respondent is P.D. Palakattumala Devaswom, represented by the Secy. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others v. Ulahannan Pylee, Kanjirakkuzhiyil Alapuram and others (AIR 1970 Kerala 30 Full bench). Such Court means competent court which should have pecuniary jurisdiction as well as territorial jurisdiction to pass a decree and to implement the above decree. 5. The next decision cited by the respondent is P.D. Palakattumala Devaswom, represented by the Secy. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others v. Ulahannan Pylee, Kanjirakkuzhiyil Alapuram and others (AIR 1970 Kerala 30 Full bench). In that case having regard to the provisions of Ss.12 and 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, it is held that irrespective of whether the decision is on a reference under S.18 or one under S.30 of the Land Acquisition Act and irrespective of whether the dispute relates to the amount of compensation, or to the title to receive it or to both, all appeals from decisions of Subordinate Judges lie to the High Court. Therefore, it held that appeals from the decisions of the Subordinate Judges under the above sections of the Land Acquisition Act will lie only to the High Court in view of S.12 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, irrespective of the value of the subject matter. Here also if the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act provided that awards are executable only by the Munsiff Court there would have been no dispute. Therefore, the above decision of the Full Bench is not applicable to the facts of this case. 6. Another decision cited by the respondent is Gordhanlal v. C. P. Industries Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1971 Rajasthan 254). Based upon the above decision itis stated that S.6 only applies to suits. It is not applicable for execution of a decree. The facts of that case was entirely different as can be seen from Paragraph 8 and 9 of the above decision which is as follows: "The District Judge was thus competent to transfer the decree to a Court of competent jurisdiction Now that Court alone is a Court of competent jurisdiction for executing a decree which has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in which the decree was passed as was held in Sitaram v. Madho Prasad, AIR 1939 All 57. 9. Under S.38, the primary Court which is competent to execute a decree is the Court which passed it. That Court remains competent to execute the decree even if the amount of the decree at the time of execution goes up beyond the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction. 9. Under S.38, the primary Court which is competent to execute a decree is the Court which passed it. That Court remains competent to execute the decree even if the amount of the decree at the time of execution goes up beyond the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction. The same principle should in my opinion apply in considering what court is competent to execute a decree". That decision only says that even if the amount of the decree at the time of execution goes up beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction, it can be executed by the same Court if that Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. Reliance was also placed on the decision Chandravathi Amma & Others v. Erumullan (1966 KLT 600) wherein it was held that decree passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court can be executed by the Munsiff s Court eventhough the decree is beyond the pecuniar jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. The above decision cannot be relied on how in view of the subsequent amendment of S.39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, words "of competent jurisdiction" were added. In view of the above, the decision reported in 1966 KLT 600 is no more applicable. 8. The next decision sought to be relied on is the decision in Kunhavulla Mussaliar v. Mohamed Mussaliar (1975 KLT 370). The above decision was also decided before the amendment of S.39 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it followed the decision reported in 1966 KLT 600 which was earlier referred to. The decree was passed by a Munsiff Court, which was competent to deal with the case at the time of filing the suit. Decree was transferred to another Munsiff for execution. Merely because decree amount exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction it was held that that Court will not become incompetent to execute the decree as Munsiff s Court had got power to try the suit at the time when the suit was filed as per the suit valuation. Therefore, that case is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In the instant case, the principle amount itself was more than Rs, 20,000/- which is outside the jurisdiction of the Munsiff s Court during the relevant time. 9. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of Ram Lakhan Rai Choudhary v. Raghunath Choudhary and Others (AIR 1969 Assam and Nagaland 81). In the instant case, the principle amount itself was more than Rs, 20,000/- which is outside the jurisdiction of the Munsiff s Court during the relevant time. 9. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of Ram Lakhan Rai Choudhary v. Raghunath Choudhary and Others (AIR 1969 Assam and Nagaland 81). There the Magistrate in a proceeding under S.146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had referred the case to the Court of Civil jurisdiction, in the territory where it was competent to deal with such matter. It was held that the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction has nothing to do with the pecuniary jurisdiction. The matter that is referred by the Criminal Court is incapable of pecuniary valuation. If there are more than one Court having territorial jurisdiction, it can be sent to any one of the Courts. It is impossible to determine the pecuniary value of the matter, which has sought to be decided by the Civil Court under S.146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the above circumstances, the High Court of Assam and Nagaland held that pecuniary jurisdiction need not be looked into. In this case, the award is for a particular amount and for executing the decree only a competent court having jurisdiction can deal with it. In the Original claim it is more than Rs. 20,000/-. The Munsiff Court had at that time no pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with such matters. Therefore, it cannot be held that it is a competent court for execution. 10. The last decision cited by the respondent is the decision in Krishnaji Shridhar Barde v. Mahadeo Sakhamm Patil (AIR 1922 Bombay 377(2)). The rules passed under S.43 of the Bombay Co-operative Credit Societies Act provide under R.34 that the decisions and awards under R.31 shall, on application to any Civil Court having local jurisdiction, be enforceable in that same manner as a decree of such Court. The question considered was whether a Court which has power to execute an award under S.34 framed under S.43 of the Bombay Co-operative Credit Societies Act has the power to transfer it for execution to another Court. The question whether a Court which has no pecuniary jurisdiction can execute the decree was not considered at all in that case. 11. The question considered was whether a Court which has power to execute an award under S.34 framed under S.43 of the Bombay Co-operative Credit Societies Act has the power to transfer it for execution to another Court. The question whether a Court which has no pecuniary jurisdiction can execute the decree was not considered at all in that case. 11. In the decision in Raman Namboodiri v. Kunhayamath (1989 (1) KLT 74) it was held by this Court that a decree passed by the Court of Small Causes cannot be transferred to the Munsiff s Court for execution. His Lordship Thomas, J. as he then was has explained the effect of amendment of S.39(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure as follows: "S.38 of the Code permits a decree to be executed "either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution". However, S.39(1) provides that a decree may be sent for execution to a Court "of competent jurisdiction". This has the effect of precluding other Courts from executing decrees. What is meant by a Court "of competent jurisdiction". Those words ( "of competent jurisdiction") were inserted in the Code by the C P.C. Amendment Act of 1976. The same Amendment Act inserted sub-s.(3) also in the main section. The newly added words in sub-s.(1) can not be read in isolation from sub-s.(3). In fact the former stands explained and even supplemented by the latter. Sub-S.(3) reads thus: "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". Sub-s.(3) gives a clear idea of what is meant by a court of competent jurisdiction envisaged in the section. Only such court as would have jurisdiction to try the suit is a court of competent jurisdiction. By a legal fiction sub-s.(3) Includes within the purview of "court of competent jurisdiction" such court, which would have become competent if the suit could have been instituted at the time when the application for transfer is made. Only such court as would have jurisdiction to try the suit is a court of competent jurisdiction. By a legal fiction sub-s.(3) Includes within the purview of "court of competent jurisdiction" such court, which would have become competent if the suit could have been instituted at the time when the application for transfer is made. This in other words, would mean that a decree cannot be transferred to a Court which has no jurisdiction to try the parent suit either at the time of its actual institution or at the later time when the application for transfer of the decree was filed. Hence, it has to be examined whether the Munsiff s Court had jurisdiction to try this duty (in which the decree was passed) at any time". I am in respectful agreement with the above proposition. 12. S.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that: "Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction". When a decree is sent for execution under S.76(a ), while executing, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be ignored. The decree of such court means that it should have competent to try the suit both territory as well as pecuniary wise. Therefore, I am of the view that an award which was for more than Rs. 20,000/- cannot be executed by the Munsiff Court at that time because it had no pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, objection raised by the revision petitioner in the execution court are valid. The execution petition at that time was not maintainable. 13. It is contended by the respondent that at present the Munsiff s Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit upto Rs.1 lakh. Since it is valid at present, the execution proceedings may be allowed to be continued. Such a plea is not acceptable because at the time 'when the petition was filed, it was without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is free for him to take fresh proceedings before that Court or any other competent court or take proceedings under S.76(a ), (b) or (c) at his discretion. Such a plea is not acceptable because at the time 'when the petition was filed, it was without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It is free for him to take fresh proceedings before that Court or any other competent court or take proceedings under S.76(a ), (b) or (c) at his discretion. If petitioner wants he can re-present the execution petition in the Hosdurg Munsiff s Court it self as at this point of time there is pecuniary jurisdiction for that Munsiff Court. In view of the discussions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.