JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. What is an issue in these two Civil Revision Applications, is the maintainability of the execution proceedings before Bhandara Court. In the Civil Revision Application No. 112/2017, decree was passed on 19-12-1997 and in the Civil Revision Application No. 113/2017, decree was passed on 13-4-1998. The applicant Municipal Corporation Tumsar is the judgment-debtor while respondent in both the Civil Revision Applications is the decree holder in both of these decrees. Both these decrees attained finality and thereafter, in the year 2011, the execution proceedings were initiated before the Court, which passed the decrees. That was the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Amravati. But, as the judgment-debtor was residing within the jurisdiction of Bhandara Court and was also having property there, both these decrees were transferred by Amravati Court to Bhandara Court in the year 2011. They were accompanied by the transfer certificates as required under the law. An objection to maintainability of these proceedings before Bhandara Court was moved by the revision applicant in both these revision applications. It was twofold, that the decrees were not transferred by Amravati Court as required by section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the decrees had become time barred. After hearing both sides, Bhandara Court, the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), rejected the objection application. But while doing so, the executing Court at Bhandara only considered the objection on the point of limitation and did not consider the objection on the point of non-transfer of the decrees by Amravati Court. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the objection on the question of non-transfer of decrees to Bhandara Court by Amravati Court, has not been considered and there is a doubt about the transfer of the decrees by adopting the procedure prescribed under the law, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back to Bhandara Court for a decision afresh on the application filed in both these cases by the applicant. 6. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent has a serious objection over remanding back of both these matters to the executing Court at Bhandara for a decision afresh. 6. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondent has a serious objection over remanding back of both these matters to the executing Court at Bhandara for a decision afresh. He contends that the respondent by filing additional affidavit on record of this case, has demonstrated that the proper procedure in transferring the decrees to Bhandara Court was followed and that even the transfer certificates were issued by Amravati Court. He submits that the transfer certificates may not have been issued exactly as per the Form prescribed in Appendix-E to Schedule-I, as required under Order 21, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the bare perusal of one of the succession certificates would show that they substantially comply with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 6, in particular, regarding non-fulfillment of the decrees and therefore this could be treated only as an irregularity not affecting the merits of the case. 7. In the case of Mohit Bhargava vs. Bharat Bhushan Bhargava and others, (2007) 4 SCC 795 , relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision applicant, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “A decree can be executed under section 38 of Civil Procedure Code only by the Court which passes a decree or to which the decree is sent by the Court passing the decree”. 8. Same is the view taken by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akola Janata Commercial Co-operative Bank vs. Raju Natthuji Badhe and others, 2011(3) ALL MR 200. 9. In the present case, it could be seen from the documents filed on record in this case that the executing Court at Amravati on 25-7-2011 itself, had directed transfer of the decrees to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Bhandara and on that date itself, even transfer certificates were issued by the Court at Amravati. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the respondent that these documents regarding transfer of decrees from Amravati Court to Bhandara Court have been obtained by the respondent from Bhandara Court. This could not have been possible unless these documents were already available at Bhandara Court. So, the inference is that these documents i.e. decrees under transfer and transfer certificates have been duly received by Bhandara Court from Amravati Court and so can be looked into. 10. This could not have been possible unless these documents were already available at Bhandara Court. So, the inference is that these documents i.e. decrees under transfer and transfer certificates have been duly received by Bhandara Court from Amravati Court and so can be looked into. 10. On going through these documents, one can find that the procedure as prescribed under section 38 read with Order 21, Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code has been substantially followed in this case though the transfer certificates are not in the proforma given in Appendix-E to Schedule-I, Civil Procedure Code. But, it is further seen, the basic requirement of these provisions of law appears to have been fulfilled while issuing the succession certificates. The basic requirement lies in the intimation the transferee Court must receive from the transferor Court that till the time of the transfer of the decree in question, the decree has not been satisfied. This basic purpose behind issuance of transfer certificate in proforma of Appendix-E, has been served by the transfer certificates issued by Amravati Court in this case because it is stated therein clearly that the decrees have not been satisfied. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Goenka vs. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee and others, AIR 1953 SC 65 , the omission to use prescribed format for issuing the transfer certificates in this case, would have to be held as not amounting to any material irregularity within the meaning of Order 21, R 90 of Civil Procedure Code and as such could not be made a ground for dismissal of the execution proceedings pending before Bhandara Court. 11. As regards the argument about remanding back both the matters to the executing Court at Bhandara for a decision afresh, I must say granting of this prayer would only be an exercise in futility as the result even there is not going to be any different, now that it is known that the procedure required for transferring the decrees has been substantially followed in the present case. 12. Thus, I find that there is no merit in both these revision applications. The applications deserve to be rejected. 13. The Civil Revision Applications stand rejected. 14. Parties to bear their own costs. 15. Rule is discharged. Revision dismissed.