ORDER : Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 2. By an order dated 21.1.2011, the writ petition stood dismissed against respondent nos. 1 & 3. 2. Against order dated 1.9.2010, by which the application seeking extension of the validity of the Precept issued under Section 46 CPC has been declined, the decree-holders/petitioners have approached this Court. 3. A suit being C.S. No. 323 of 2003 was instituted by Parijat Vyapar Private Limited and one of its Directors namely, Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal, for a decree for Rs. 14,00,000/- and mesne profit/damages @ Rs. 1,75,000/- till the date of return of machines and @ Rs. 70,000/- per month till Tippers, two in numbers, are returned to the plaintiff no. 1 company. Several other relief’s seeking mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction, appointment of receiver, interest pendente lite etc. were also sought. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 6.8.2009 against the defendants namely, J. Khan, Surinder Kumar Singh and Bankat Garodia for Rs. 14 lakhs with money decree for retention charges for machinery until realization. On 30.6.2010, on an application which was registered as Execution Case No. 143 of 2010 filed by Parijat Vyapar Private Limited, a learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court passed an order of attachment in respect of immovable properties described in the Tabular Statement appended to the said application dated 22.6.2010 filed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, transfer of original certificate of the decree dated 6.8.2009 in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 together with the original Precept issued in terms of prayer (b) to the Tabular Statement and a certificate of non-satisfaction of the decree dated 6.8.2009. In compliance of the said order the certified copy of decree dated 6.8.2009 together with a certificate of non-satisfaction of the said decree along with original Precept and a copy of order dated 30.6.2010 were transferred to the District Court, Ranchi on 22.7.2010. The Court at Ranchi issued an order to the Nazir on 18.8.2010, for proclamation of attachment under the Precept. On the same day, Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 was instituted by the decree-holders in the Court of 1st Subordinate Judge at Ranchi for execution of decree dated 6.8.2009. The Court at Ranchi issued an order to the Nazir on 18.8.2010, for proclamation of attachment under the Precept. On the same day, Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 was instituted by the decree-holders in the Court of 1st Subordinate Judge at Ranchi for execution of decree dated 6.8.2009. The proclamation order issued by the said court was executed by the Nazir on 19.8.2010 and a report was submitted stating that two of the properties out of seven properties could not be identified, however, other five properties were attached. The petitioners have asserted that on 30.8.2010 they filed an application in Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 for extension of validity of the Precept. This application was posted for hearing and final order on 31.8.2010, however, on 1.9.2010 the learned trial Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the transferee court has no power to pass an order for execution at the instance of transferee of a decree and it is not competent to decide the issue of limitation. This is the order, which has been challenged by the petitioners in the present proceeding. 4. Contending that by virtue of order dated 30.6.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 143 of 2010, the transferee court at Ranchi has jurisdiction to extend the validity of the Precept and it is the court at Ranchi which, on transfer of the decree, is competent to execute the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, Mr. Sabsanchi Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioners assails the legality of the impugned order dated 1.9.2010, Inter alia, on the following grounds : (i) the transferee court has powers under Section 42 CPC to adjudicate any issue, as if it is the original court which has passed the decree, (ii) the applications dated 18.8.2010 and 30.8.2010 both were maintainable in Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 and, (iii) the transferee court has illegally refused to extend validity of the Precept issued vide order dated 30.6.2010 in Execution Case No. 143 of 2010. 5. Seriously resisting challenge to the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 21 of 2010, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contends that an application for execution of decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 can be instituted only in the Calcutta High Court and not in a Court at Ranchi. 5. Seriously resisting challenge to the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 21 of 2010, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 contends that an application for execution of decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 can be instituted only in the Calcutta High Court and not in a Court at Ranchi. The real import of order dated 30.6.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 143 of 2010 is that, only the Precept issued by the Calcutta High Court has been transferred to the Court at Ranchi for its execution and not for the execution of the decree in C.S. No. 323 of 2003. Elaborating his argument, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel submits that there is a clear distinction between a Precept and execution of a decree; a Precept is a step prior to execution of a decree and order dated 30.6.2010 in no manner can be construed as a direction to the Court at Ranchi for executing the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003. 6. After the suit was decreed on 6.8.2009 and a decree was drawn on 10.12.2009 in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, the litigation between the parties did not remain confined to the Court at Ranchi rather, there was a second round of litigation by the judgment-debtor no. 2 when he filed an application for setting-aside the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 which was registered as G.A. No. 3007 of 2010. This application filed in Calcutta High Court stood dismissed on 4.5.2015, and the judgment-debtor no. 2 preferred A.P.O.T. No. 244 of 2015 against the said order. The appeal preferred against the order passed in G.A. No. 3007 of 2010 was dismissed by an order dated 24.8.2015. This order was challenged by the judgment-debtor no. 2 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 28394 of 2015 which, after the decree-holders appeared in the said proceeding, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 8.8.2017 with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. 7. Evidently, judgment and decree in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 stand affirmed and subject to limitations in law it must be executed. At this stage it needs to be recorded that a decree cannot be permitted to be frustrated on untenable grounds. 25,000/-. 7. Evidently, judgment and decree in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 stand affirmed and subject to limitations in law it must be executed. At this stage it needs to be recorded that a decree cannot be permitted to be frustrated on untenable grounds. In "Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Private Limited vs. P.R. Selvam Alagappan" reported in (2017)5 SCC 371 the Hon'ble Supreme has observed; "It is no longer res integra that an executing court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties thereunder". It is well-settled that even if the decree is illegal, the executing court has no power to interfere with the decree; the executing court can refuse execution, however, that power is also very limited and it extends only to the cases in which it is found that the decree on account of its vagueness is not executable, or it has been passed by a court which has no jurisdiction, or it has been passed against a dead person. 8. In the Tabular Statement filed along with the application dated 22.6.2010, the decree-holders have made the following prayers : "(b) An order of attachment in respect of the immovable properties described in prayer (a) hereinabove be passed in the form of a Precept directing the Ld. District Court at Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand to proceed to attach the said immovable properties in the manner as prescribed in this regard to the attachment of property in execution of a decree in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (c) The Registrar, High Court, Original Side be directed to forthwith send and/or transfer the original certified copy of the decree dated 6th August, 2009 in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 filed herein together with the original Precept as may be issued by this Hon'ble Court in• terms of prayer (b) above and a certificate of non-satisfaction of the said decree dated 6th August, 2009 to the office of the District Judge, Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand, for execution thereof in accordance with law." 9. Clause (a) in the Tabular Statement was description of seven properties belonging to judgment-debtor no. 2 situated at Ranchi. 10. Clause (a) in the Tabular Statement was description of seven properties belonging to judgment-debtor no. 2 situated at Ranchi. 10. A bare reading of order dated 30.6.2010 would disclose that the application filed by the decree-holders was for transfer of the decree to the court at Ranchi on the ground that the properties are situated within its jurisdiction and for a direction in terms of Section 46 CPO, which is an order for attachment of the specified immovable properties of the judgment-debtor no. 2 situated within the jurisdiction of the District Court at Ranchi. The order of Precept issued in terms of prayers (b) was for a period of two months, however, it was specifically recorded in order, dated 30.6.2010 that, "unless specifically extended by the order of the court to which the decree stands transferred". The relevant portion of the said order reads as under : "Since the decree has been made within a period of two years prior to today, there will be an order in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of Column 10 of the Tabular Statement. The order of attachment will automatically be dissolved after the expiry of a period of two months from date unless specifically extended by the order of the Court to which the decree stands transferred." 11. Referring to proviso to sub-section (2) to Section 46 CPC, Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has contended that validity of a Precept can be extended only by the executing court and not by a court to which the decree has been transferred and while so, the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 declining the application for extending the validity of the Precept is legal and valid. In face of order dated 30.6.2010 passed in Execution Case No. 143 of 2010, this contention is liable to be rejected. Equally untenable is the plea that the application dated 22.6.2010 filed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 was one under Section 39 CPC. The specific direction in order dated 30.6.2010 is binding upon the transferee court and if the judgment-debtors were aggrieved of this order, allegedly passed against the specific provision under Section 46 CPC, it was open to them to challenge order dated 30.6.2010, which admittedly was not challenged by them. Objection to order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Calcutta High Court cannot be taken before this Court. Objection to order dated 30.6.2010 passed by Calcutta High Court cannot be taken before this Court. Rejection of the application dated 30.8.2010 seeking extension of validity of the Precept by the 1st Subordinate Judge at Ranchi must therefore be held illegal. 12. It is not in dispute that on 18.8.2010 the decree-holders filed an application for execution of the attachment order under Precept, sale of attached properties and for appointment of a receiver; and on 30.8.2010 an application has been filed for extending the validity of the Precept issued by the Calcutta High Court. This application was posted for hearing and final order on 31.8.2010, on which date the Presiding Officer was not holding the Court. Subsequently, the application seeking extension of time was taken up for hearing on 1.9.2010 and it has been rejected on the ground that the Court at Ranchi has no power to extend the period of validity of the Precept. This order, in my opinion, has been passed by the trial Judge in ignorance of general provisions under the General Clauses Act, 1897 relating to implication of closure of office, court etc. on the date fixed. Section 10 of General Clauses Act provides that if any act or proceeding is directed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain date or within a prescribed period, then if the court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next date afterwards on which the court or office is open. No doubt, the court was not closed on 31.8.2010, but for the purpose of hearing and passing the final order on application dated 30.8.2010, which was the last date of validity of the Precept, it must be construed in law that the court was closed and when an order is passed on 1.9.2010 it cannot be said that the application was beyond two months, that is, after the expiry of the Precept. By virtue of order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court and the powers under Section 42 CPC, the trial Judge at Ranchi has power to entertain such applications. By virtue of order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court and the powers under Section 42 CPC, the trial Judge at Ranchi has power to entertain such applications. The trial Judge, in the above facts, fell in serious error in law in holding that it has no power to entertain the application for extending validity of the Precept issued by the Calcutta High Court. 13. On the contention that the Precept is only a step in execution of a decree and on transfer of the Precept to the transferee court, the execution case instituted by the decree-holder does not become a suit for executing the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, suffice would be to record that order dated 30.6.2010 is quite clear on this issue. By this order not only the Precept issued under Section 46 CPC was sent to the court at Ranchi, the original decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 was also transferred for execution. Section 39 CPC provides that on an application of the decree-holder, the court which has passed a decree may send it for execution to another court of competent jurisdiction. Section 42 CPC lays down that the court executing a decree sent to it, that is, the transferee court shall have the same powers in executing such decrees as if it has been passed by itself. Thus, a transferee court is, under law, under a duty to execute the decree and send a report to the court which has passed the decree, on execution or non-execution of the decree. The direction issued vide order dated 30.6.2010 by the learned Single Judge is not confined to execution of the Precept alone, the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003 has also to be executed by the Court at Ranchi and a report thereof to be sent to the Calcutta High Court. Moreover, the petitioners are not the transferees of the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, as the trial Judge seems to have assumed. They are the decree-holders who have instituted Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 for execution of the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, which has been transferred to the Court at Ranchi. 14. Moreover, the petitioners are not the transferees of the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, as the trial Judge seems to have assumed. They are the decree-holders who have instituted Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 for execution of the decree passed in C.S. No. 323 of 2003, which has been transferred to the Court at Ranchi. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 suffers from serious infirmity in law, and accordingly this order passed in Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 is set aside. The execution case is restored to its original file. The trial Judge is directed to decide application dated 30.8.2010 filed in Execution Case No. 21 of 2010 afresh, within a period of 30 days, on appearance of the parties. 15. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 22.12.2017, when a date for hearing shall be fixed by the trial Judge. The parties may be permitted to file additional affidavits. 16. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms. 17. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial Court through 'FAX'.