JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri R.S. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.M.Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. Suit No. 89 of 1997 has been filed by the respondents at Varanasi which has been subsequently transferred to Ghazipur. The said suit has been decreed on 30.3.2006. In the execution proceedings, the petitioners, who were defendants in the suit filed objections that the Ghazipur Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree, inasmuch as the property is situated at Varanasi. The said objection has been dismissed by the executing Court vide order dated 26.10.2009 and the revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Ghazipur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree can only be executed by the Court where the property situates. Admittedly, the property situates at Varanasi and, therefore, the Court at Varanasi has jurisdiction to execute the decree and not the Court of Ghazipur. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and others, 2007 (68) ALR 311. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent is not able to show anything to the contrary. 6. The Apex Court in the case of Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and others (supra) has held as follows : “There cannot be any dispute over the proposition that the Court which passed the decree is entitled to execute the decree. This is clear from Section 38 of the Code which provides that a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. Section 42 of the Code indicates that the transferee Court to which the decree is transferred for execution will have the same powers in executing that decree as if it had been passed by itself. Section 42 of the Code indicates that the transferee Court to which the decree is transferred for execution will have the same powers in executing that decree as if it had been passed by itself. A decree could be executed by the Court which passed the decree so long as it is confined to the assets within its own jurisdiction or as authorised by Order XXI, Rule 3 or Order XXI, Rule 48 of the Code or the judgment debtor is within its jurisdiction, if it is a decree for personal obedience by the judgment debtor. But when the property sought to be proceeded against, is outside the jurisdiction of the Court which passed the decree acting as the executing Court, there was a conflict of views earlier, some Courts taking the view that the Court which passed the decree and which is approached for execution cannot proceed with execution but could only transmit the decree to the Court having jurisdiction over the property and some other Courts taking the view that it is matter of discretion for the executing Court and it could either proceed with the execution or send the decree for execution to another Court. But this conflict was set at rest by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002, by adopting the position that if the execution is sought to be proceeded against any person or property outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the executing Court, nothing in Section 39 of the Code shall be deemed to authorise the Court to proceed with the execution. In the light of this, it may not be possible to accept the contention that it is a matter of discretion for the Court either to proceed with the execution of the decree or to transfer it for execution to the Court within the jurisdiction of which the property is situate.” 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is apparent that the Ghazipur Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree, inasmuch as the property is situated at Varanasi. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.20096 passed by the executing Court and the order dated 7.11.2009 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur are set aside and the objection filed by the petitioners is allowed. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.20096 passed by the executing Court and the order dated 7.11.2009 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur are set aside and the objection filed by the petitioners is allowed. The executing Court, Ghazipur is directed to transmit the necessary papers to the competent Court of Varanasi within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. ————