ORDER C.K. Prasad, J. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC (hereafter referred to as the Code) for review of my judgment and decree dated 18-12-1998 passed in Second Appeal No. 115/89 whereby the aforesaid appeal has been dismissed. Facts necessary for the decision of the present application are that the plaintiff filed suit for declaration that auction held on 12-1-1975 is null and void and the plaintiff is not bound by the same. Further prayer made by the plaintiff was that defendant No. 2 Ratan Chand be permanently restrained from taking possession of the disputed house. Third Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai by judgment and decree dated 26-4-1986 passed in Civil Suit No. 288-A/86 decreed the plaintiff suit. Defendant No. 2 Ratan Chand aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the Additional District Judge, Khurai by judgment and decree dated 7-12-1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 25-A of 1986 partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree of the trial Court. It held that the plaintiff has title and interest to the extent of one-fourth share of the suit house and to that extent defendant No. 2 is entitled to take possession by filing suit for partition against the plaintiff and his brother. Plaintiff aggrieved by the same preferred Second Appeal No. 115/89 before this Court. While admitting the appeal by order dated 1-8-1989 this Court framed following substantial question of law:-- "Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, a transferee Court, while executing the decree of a Small Causes Court, could sell the immovable property while executing the decree?'' By judgment and decree dated 8-12-1998 said appeal was dismissed. In the appeal, stand of the plaintiff was that as the decree was not transferred to a regular competent Civil Court immovable property ought not to have been auction sold in execution of the decree passed by Small Causes Court. Aforesaid submission made on behalf of the plaintiff was negatived by this Court. While doing so, this Court held as follows:-- "Having appreciated the rival submission, I am of the opinion that the whole premises on which Sri Tiwari has proceeded that the execution case was not transferred to the regular Civil Court is erroneous. Aforesaid submission made on behalf of the plaintiff was negatived by this Court. While doing so, this Court held as follows:-- "Having appreciated the rival submission, I am of the opinion that the whole premises on which Sri Tiwari has proceeded that the execution case was not transferred to the regular Civil Court is erroneous. By order dated 18th January 1971, execution proceeding in relation to Small Causes Court cases was transferred to 3rd Civil Judge, Class II and thereafter by order dated 8th October, 1971, same was directed to be entertained by the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai. Sale statement (Ex. P-2) clearly shows that the execution proceeding was conducted by the Second Civil Judge, Class II. In view of the aforesaid, 1 do not find that the Second Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai committed any illegality by effecting sale of the immovable property in execution of the decree. In concur with the conclusion arrived at by lower Appellate Court and as such the authority relied on by Shri Tiwari is clearly distinguishable." Mr. A. D. Deoras, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that, in fact, the question which ought to have been answered by this Court while deciding the appeal, was as to whether the Second Civil Judge, Class II was competent to auction-sale the immovable property for satisfaction of the decree passed by the Small Causes Court? He submits that failure to answer this question clearly demonstrates that while passing the impugned judgment and decree this Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Ravish Agrawal appearing on behalf of the defendants submits that the point urged by the plaintiff in the present application was not projected at the time of hearing of the second appeal and as such the application for review deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further points out that even if the judgment under review is erroneous, same does not justify review of the judgment. He submits that the remedy of the plaintiff was to assail the judgment and decree of this Court before the superior Court and in the aforesaid premises he prays for dismissal of this application on this ground alone. He further points out that even if the judgment under review is erroneous, same does not justify review of the judgment. He submits that the remedy of the plaintiff was to assail the judgment and decree of this Court before the superior Court and in the aforesaid premises he prays for dismissal of this application on this ground alone. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission made by Shri Ravish Agrawal that an erroneous judgment rendered by the Court itself may not justify its review at a later stage by the same Court. It is well settled that the power of review is exercised by the Court when error apparent on the face of record is shown. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, I proceed to examine this case. One Krishna Bai obtained an ex parte decree for a sum of Rs. 222/- in Small Cause Case No. 65/61. By order dated 18-6-1971 execution proceeding was levied in the Small Causes Court. By order dated 18-1-1971 all cases including the execution proceeding and other proceedings were transferred to third Civil Judge, Class II by the District Judge. Later on, the District Judge by order dated 8-10-1971 transferred the same to Second Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai. For the satisfaction of the decree of Rs. 222/- of the Small Causes Court immovable property (house) of the plaintiff was sold and purchased by defendant No. 2 on 12-11-1975 for a sum of Rs. 5500/- . In view of the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal what ought to have been decided was as to whether Second Civil Judge, Class II, i.e. the transferee Court could have sold the immovable property while executing the decree of Small Causes Court. Although at the time of hearing of the appeal on such argument was raised, but what was argued at that time was that the decree passed by the Small Causes Court was not transferred to a regular competent Civil Court. Aforesaid question was answered against the plaintiff and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Although at the time of hearing of the appeal on such argument was raised, but what was argued at that time was that the decree passed by the Small Causes Court was not transferred to a regular competent Civil Court. Aforesaid question was answered against the plaintiff and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. In my opinion, even after, the answer of the aforesaid question against the plaintiff this Court ought to have considered as to whether in execution of the decree of Small Causes Court which was transferred to Second Civil Judge, Class II, Khurai later could have auction-sold the immovable property for satisfaction of the decree. This being an error apparent on the face of the record, I proceed to determine this question. Order 21, Rule 82, of the Code inter-alia provides for sale of immovable property in execution of the decree by any Court other than a Court of Small Causes. It is the stand of the plaintiff that execution proceeding was transferred to the Second Civil Judge, Class II u/s 24(4) of the Code, later shall deemed to be a Court of Small Causes and as such lacked jurisdiction to sale immovable property of the plaintiff in execution of the decree of Small Causes Court. Mr. Ravish Agrawal, however, appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that execution proceeding is not a suit and as such the limitation put by section 24(4) of the Code that the transferee Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes is not remotely attracted. He submits that section 39 of the CPC inter-alia provides for transfer of the decree and in view of section 42 of the Code the transferee Court, i.e., the Court of Civil Judge, Class II shall have the same powers in executing the transferred decree as if it has been passed by itself. He submits that there is no restriction put on Civil Judge, Class II for sale of the immovable property in execution of the decree. He further submits that the transfer of the case to the Civil Judge, Class II has been effected u/s 15 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act and not u/s 24 of the Code. Mr. He submits that there is no restriction put on Civil Judge, Class II for sale of the immovable property in execution of the decree. He further submits that the transfer of the case to the Civil Judge, Class II has been effected u/s 15 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act and not u/s 24 of the Code. Mr. Agrawal in support of his submission has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sarjoo Prasad vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, AIR 1975 Allahabad 13; to contend that if a Small Causes Court decree is transferred to regular Civil Court the transferee Court has powers to execute the decree against immovable property. My attention has been drawn to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-- "Section 42 of the Code, as it originally stood, provided that the transferee Court while executing a decree shall have the same powers as were possessed by the transferor Court. In Ram Lochan Vs. Mahadeo Prasad Singh and Others, a Full Bench of this Court held that under this provision a decree passed by a Small Causes Court could not be executed against immovable property even by the regular Courts, because in such cases the powers of the regular Courts were only such as were possessed by the transferor Court, namely, the Small Causes Court. Subsequently the Legislature amended section 42 by the Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 14 of 1970. After the amendment this provision provided that the Court executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decrees as if it had been passed by itself. Thus, if a Small Cause Court decree is transferred to a regular Civil Court, the transferee Court having powers to execute decrees against immovable properties, will execute the Small Causes Court decree against immovable property. Thus, if a Small Cause Court decree is transferred to a regular Civil Court, the transferee Court having powers to execute decrees against immovable properties, will execute the Small Causes Court decree against immovable property. It cannot hence be said that a decree against immovable property passed by the small cause Court is inexecutable." In the aforesaid case in view of provisions of section 39 of the Code it found that the Court of Small Cause can sent decree passed by itself for execution to a Civil Court and in the aforesaid background the Allahabad High Court held that, in case, decree of Small Causes Court is transferred to regular Civil Court u/s 39 of the Code, transferee Court shall have powers to execute decree against immovable property. Here in the present case decree was not transferred to the Civil Court for execution and hence the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. Another decision on which Mr. Agrawal has placed reliance is the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ekadashi vs. Ganga and others, AIR 1981 Allahabad 373; and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 6 of the judgment. Same reads as follows:-- "Now so far as the first point is concerned, the matter seems to be concluded by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Lochan Vs. Mahadeo Prasad Singh and Others, which has been affirmed and approved by the Supreme Court in Mahadeo Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Ram Lochan and Others, . The execution proceedings in which the share was purchased by Mangaroo were initiated before the amendment of section 42 of the CPC by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1954 that is, before 30th November 1954. As held by the Full Bench in Ram Lochan's case, the law applicable was the law in force on the date when the execution proceedings were commenced and it is indisputable and indeed not disputed before me that as on the date when the execution proceedings were commenced in the present case, the Court executing a decree sent to it had the same powers in executing it as if it had been passed by itself u/s 42 of the CPC as it stood before the said amendment by U. P. Act No. 24 of 1954 in Utter Pradesh. The first point raised by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, fails and it cannot be said that Mangaroo did not acquire a good title to a 1/2 share in the property purchased by him in the proceedings for execution of the decree of the Small Cause Court against Ekadashi, that were taken in the Court of the Munsif Varanasi." In the aforesaid case it has been held that the transferee Court while executing a decree sent to it shall have the same powers as if it has been passed by itself u/s 42 of the Code. There is no difficulty in holding that in case a decree is transferred u/s 39 of the Code the transferee Court shall have the same powers while executing the decree as if it has been passed by it. However, in the present case, it is nobody's case that the decree of the Small Causes Court, was transferred by the said Court to the Civil Judge, Class II, u/s 39 of the Code and hence the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. Yet another decision on which Shri Agrawal has placed reliance is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Singh and Another Vs. Ram Lochan and Others, . He has drawn my attention to the following passage from the said judgment:-- "Thus, for the words "as if it had been passed by itself" occurring in the first sentence of sub-section (1) of section 42, the Amending Act 24 of 1954 substituted the words "as the Court which passed it". The effect of such substitution was that the powers of the transferee Court in executing the transferred decree became conterminous with the powers of the Court which had passed it. The result was that if the power of the transferor Court to execute its own decree were in any respect restricted, the same restriction would attach to the powers of the transferee Court in executing the transferred decree; notwithstanding the position that the powers of the transferee Court in executing its own decree were not so restricted." In the aforesaid case also the Supreme Court was considering the scope of section 42 of the Code as amended by U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1954. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case shall have bearing on the decision of the present case only if it is found that the decree was transferred by the Small Causes Court to the Civil Judge, Class II for its execution. As stated earlier, in the present case, decree has not been transferred by the Small Causes Court and hence decision in relation to the powers of the transferee Court u/s 42 of the Code shall have no bearing for decision of the present case. Order 21, Rule 82 of the Code provides for sale of immovable property in execution of decree by any Court other than a Court of Small Causes. Section 39 of the Code provides for transfer of the decree. In view of section 42 of the Code the Court executing the decree sent to it shall have the same powers in executing such decree as if it has been passed by itself. Here in the present case, decree has not been transferred by the Small Causes Court which has passed the same. As stated earlier, the stand of the petitioner is that the decree has been transferred to the Civil Judge u/s 24 of the Code whereas according to the respondents it has been transferred u/s 15 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act. In my opinion the question as to whether the power was exercised by the District Judge u/s 24 of the Code of section 15 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act is academic. Further it is also academic as to whether the use of expression 'suit' in section 24(4) of the Code shall include execution proceeding. However, to put the record straight, Mr. Agrawal in support of his submission that u/s 24(4) of the Code the expression 'suit' shall not include in execution proceeding, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Nagpur High Court in the case of Rambharose Nanhelal Jain vs. Pyarelal Gangaram Parwar, 1946 NU 14 : AIR 1946 Nag 165. In my considered opinion as the Small Causes Court has not transferred the decree in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 39 of the Code, the transferee Court, i.e., Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to exercise the same powers for executing such decree as if it has been passed by itself. In my considered opinion as the Small Causes Court has not transferred the decree in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 39 of the Code, the transferee Court, i.e., Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to exercise the same powers for executing such decree as if it has been passed by itself. Hence the sale of the immovable property by the Civil Judge is in the teeth of the provision of Order 21, Rule 82 of the Code. Error being apparent on the face of the record the judgment under review deserves to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Section 39 of the CPC inter-alia provides for transfer of a decree by the Court which has passed the same for its execution to another Court on the application of the decree-holder. In case of such transfer in view of section 42 of the Code, the Court executing the transferred decree shall have the same powers in executing such decrees as if it has been passed by itself. In the present case Small Causes Court which has passed the decree had not transferred the decree to Civil Judge, Class II and as such, the transferee Court shall not have the same powers in executing the transferred decree, treating the same to have been passed by itself. Question of law framed at the time of admission of the second appeal has thus to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and it has to be held that as the decree was not transferred by the Small Causes Court u/s 39 of the Code, the transferee Court while executing the decree of a Small Causes Court could not have sold the immovable property while executing the decree. In the result, the application is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 18-12-1998 passed in Second Appeal No. 115/89 are set aside. Second Appeal No. 115/89 filed by the plaintiff is allowed and judgment and decree dated 7-12-1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 25-A/86 are set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Allowed