P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Srinivasa Rao, Counsel representing Sri K. Venkata Rao, Counsel for the revision Petitioners, Sri A. Satyaraj babu, Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Advocate General. ( 2 ) THE Revision Petitioners are defendants in O. S. No. 59 of 2000 on the file of senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The said defendants suffered a decree on 7-4-2001 and respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in the said suit had put the said decree into execution by filing E. P. No. 94 of 2001 in O. S. No. 59 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The petitioners/defendants, who are the Judgment-Debtors in the said E. P. , are raising an objection to the very execution of the said decree by the said Court on the ground that Rule 35 of the andhra Pradesh Agency Rules 1924 framed under Sec. 6 of the Scheduled Districts act, 1874 (in short Rules) would operate as a bar and unless the said procedure is followed, though the decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, kothagudem, even the self same Court cannot execute the decree. The learned advocate General at the out set submitted that on facts, it is clear that Rule 35 of the Rules is not applicable at all and hence, the question raised in the present Civil Revision Petition does not involve any question of general importance as such and hence, the said Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of in the light of the factual situation. ( 3 ) RULE 35 of the afore said Rules reads as here under:"where it is sought to execute within the Agency tracts a decree passed by a court in India situated outside the said tracts, the court issuing the decree shall forward the decree and a copy of the judgment in the suit to the Agtent to state Government who shall cause the decree to be executed in the manner provided by these Rules for the execution of a decree passed by him: provided that for reasons to be recorded, the Agent to the State Government may refuse to cause any such decree to be executed, or may at any stage of the execution order the execution of any such decree to be stayed. Provided also that such refusal or order of the Agent to the State Government shall be subject to revision by the State Government. The agent to the State Government shall furnish to the court issuing the decree a certificate of execution or a copy of his order refusing to execute or staying the execution of the decree". ( 4 ) FROM the language employed into Rule 35, it is clear that the Rule is applicable only in specified cases. The objection raised is that though the Senior Civil judge, Kothagudem had passed the decree, the said Court cannot execute the decree in view of the bar imposed by Rule 35. It is needless to say that ordinarily when a decree is passed by the competent Court, the said Court or any other competent Court would have definitely jurisdiction to execute the decree. ( 5 ) SECTION 38 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with the execution of decree, which specifies that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Ashifaquddin and others Vs. Mohd. Azizuddin and others. In C. R. P. No. 1894 of 2001 and batch, by Judgment dated 6-2-2003, this Court had expressed the view that:"where a decree is passed by a particular Court even in the Agency tract, the said Court can execute the decree". ( 6 ) IT was held by the learned Judge that Rule 35 applies, where the Court is outside the Agency tracts passed a decree and the decree has to be executed by the Agency tracts. ( 7 ) STRONG reliance was placed on the Judgment dated 15-10-1990 made in Civil revision Petition No. 1418 of 1990, wherein a contrary view was expressed to the effect that the concerned Court, Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem cannot execute such a decree and the said Court has to forward the decree to the State government, Khammam for execution as specified under Rule 35 of the Agency rules. No doubt, this decision was not referred to in the subsequent decision in C. R. P. No. 1894 of 2001 and batch. No doubt, this decision was not referred to in the subsequent decision in C. R. P. No. 1894 of 2001 and batch. ( 8 ) IN the light of the clear language employed in Rule 35, I am satisfied that the court which passed the decree even in the Agency tracts can definitely execute the decree unless otherwise the bar imposed by Rule 35 can be specifically made applicable. In other words, unless the ingredients under Rule 35 are satisfied, it cannot be said that the Court which passed the decree even within Agency tracts cannot execute its own decree. Such interpretation would be normally not in accordance with justice, fair play and equity, since it would be very difficult to lay down a proposition that the Court which passed the decree cannot execute its own decree, such a provision operating as bar should be construed strictly and unless the ingredients are scrupulously satisfied, it cannot be laid down that a decree if passed by the concerned Court cannot be executed by such a Court in view of the bar aforesaid. Hence, I am inclined to hold that the Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem who had made the decree in o. S. No. 59 of 2000 is perfectly entitled to entertain the E. P. No. 94 of 2001. A careful reading of Rule 35 creates some doubt and it is advisable and desirable to amend the Rule suitably to clarify the position and also to avoid unpleasant litigation in this regard. ( 9 ) IN the light of the discussion, I do not see any merit in the Civil Revision petition and accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.