JUDGMENT : K.Harilal, J. The questions that arise for consideration in this Mat. Appeal are as follows : (1). Whether the court, which passed the decree, has ceased to have jurisdiction to execute a decree, if the territory, within which the property is situated, is transferred from the jurisdiction of that court to the jurisdiction of another court, by the establishment of the latter court. (2). Whether the court, which passed decree, can proceed with sale of the property attached before judgment, where the territory, within which the said property is situated, is transferred to another court by the establishment of that court, notwithstanding the bar that the court, which passed the decree, cannot proceed with execution against the property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, under Section 39(4)of the CPC. 2. The appellant herein is the decree holder in EP.No.8/2013 in OP.No.415/2010 of the Family Court, Thiruvalla and the aforesaid EP was filed, in execution of the decree, passed by the said court against the respondents 1 to 3 herein in the said OP. The property, which is sought to be sold in execution of the decree, was attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC. Subsequently the attachment was made absolute and after the decree at the execution stage, the property was sold in public auction, after complying all the legal formalities. While so, the respondents 1 to 3 filed EA.No.107/2014 in the EP challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvalla to execute the decree. According to the respondents 1 to 3, after the institution of the aforesaid EP before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, the property which was soldin execution of the decree was transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta by the establishment of that court on 03.08.2013. According to them, by the establishment of the Family Court at Pathanamthitta, the Family Court, Thiruvalla has lost its jurisdiction over the territory within which the property sold in execution is situated. So, after the bifurcation of jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvalla by the establishment of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, the Family Court, Thiruvalla has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. 3. The appellant herein filed objection challenging the maintainability of EA.No.107/2014. According to the appellant herein, the application was highly belated. Now the sale is over and stands confirmed. So, after the bifurcation of jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvalla by the establishment of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, the Family Court, Thiruvalla has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. 3. The appellant herein filed objection challenging the maintainability of EA.No.107/2014. According to the appellant herein, the application was highly belated. Now the sale is over and stands confirmed. The objection, challenging the maintainability of the EP, should have been raised at the earliest, immediately after the filing of the EP. But, no objection was raised challenging the territorial jurisdiction and power of the court in executing the decree till the confirmation of sale. 4. After considering the rival pleas, the court below allowed the said application, on a finding that the Family Court, Thiruvalla has no jurisdiction over the territory, within which the property sold in execution is situated and thereby the Family Court, Thiruvalla is not competent to execute the decree. Further it is held that after the insertion of Sub section 41 to Section 39 of the CPC, the court which passed the decree has no jurisdiction to execute the decree against any personal property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings are challenged in this Mat.Appeal. 5. Heard Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.C.B.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Admittedly, the decree was passed by the Family Court, Thiruvalla on 31.10.2012 and the execution petition was filed before that court in February, 2013. Notice was issued to respondents 1 to 3. The scheduled property was sold in execution of the decree and the sale was confirmed on 27.10.2014. Thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 filed the aforesaid EA, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, to execute the decree on the reason that on 03.08.2013, the Family Court, Pathanamthitta has been established and the territory within which the property sold in execution of the decree is situated was transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 7. It is true that the Family Court, Pathanamthitta had been established on 03.08.2013 and the territory, within which the property sold in execution is situated, was transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, during the pendency of the said EP. On the above premises, the question referred to above would come into consideration. 7. It is true that the Family Court, Pathanamthitta had been established on 03.08.2013 and the territory, within which the property sold in execution is situated, was transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, during the pendency of the said EP. On the above premises, the question referred to above would come into consideration. When the competency of the court to execute the decree is challenged, in view of the formation of a new court and transferring of territories from the former court to the newly established court, the definition of “the court which passed the decree”, contemplated under Section 37 of the CPC, would come into consideration. 8. We have meticulously gone through Section 37 of the CPC. The explanation to Section 37 is relevant and significant, in view of the question in controversy involved in this appeal. The explanation to Section 37 of the CPC reads thus : “37. Definition of Court which passed a decree.- The expression “Court which passed a decree”, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include,- (a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and (b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit. Explanation :- “The court of first instance does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute a decree merely on the ground that after the institution of the suit wherein the decree was passed or after the passing of the decree, any area has been transferred from the jurisdiction of that Court to the jurisdiction of any other Court; but in every such case, such other Court shall also have jurisdiction to execute the decree, if at the time of making the application for execution of the decree it would have jurisdiction to try the said suit”. 9. 9. Going by the said explanation to Section 37 of the CPC, we find that the court of first instance does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute a decree, merely on the ground that after the institution of the suit or after the passing of the decree, any territory has been transferred from the jurisdiction of that Court to the jurisdiction of any other Court. But, the latter court shall also have jurisdiction to execute the decree, if that court would have jurisdiction to try the said suit, at the time of making the execution petition. 10. Coming to the next question, which arises out of Section 39(4)of the CPC reads thus : 39. Transfer of decree.- (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise the Court which passed a decree to execute such decree against any person or property outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. 11. On a bare reading of Section 39 (4) of the CPC, it is well discernible that the operation of the said provision is confined to Section 39 only. Section 39 deals with the transfer of a decree from the court, which passed the decree to the other court, for execution against the property situated within the jurisdiction of the transferee court; whereas the explanation to Section 37 of the CPC deals with the transfer of an area, within which the property is situated, from the jurisdiction of the court, which passed the decree to another court and the bar under Section 39 (4) is limited to Section 39 only. It is not operative against explanation to Section 37 of the CPC. The legal fiction under the explanation to Section 37 of the CPC is that, in relation to the execution of decrees, the court, which passed the decree, is deemed to have jurisdiction over the area, which is transferred to the jurisdiction of any other court, notwithstanding the actual legal effect and impact of such transfer. If that be so, in a pending EP, the court which passed the decree can proceed with the execution, by the sale of the property actually situated in the area, which is transferred to the jurisdiction of the other court, by the invocation of explanation to Section 37 of the CPC, notwithstanding Section 39(4)of the CPC, which is operative in the case only where decreeis transferred to another court. In other words, the explanation to Section 37 is an exception to the bar that the execution court cannot proceed against the property, situated outside the local limits of its jurisdiction. The explanation to Section 37 of the CPC is not hit by Section 39 (4) of CPC, as the latter is not operative against the explanation. 12. When applying the aforesaid proposition to the instant case, we find that the Family court, Thiruvalla is the court of first instance referred to in the explanation, as the decree was passed by the Family court, Thiruvalla and the EP was filed before that court. It is true that during the pendency of the EP, the Family Court, Pathanamthitta has been established on 03.08.2013 and Adoor Taluk, the Taluk, within which the property sought to be executed is situated, was transferred to the newly established Family Court at Pathanamthitta. 13. When applying the aforesaid proposition, we find that the Family Court, Thiruvalla does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute the decree, notwithstanding the fact that the Adoor Taluk, within which the property sought to be executed is situated, was transferred to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. In other words, even after the formation of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, the Family Court, Thiruvalla has jurisdiction to execute the decree, which was passed by that court, notwithstanding the fact that the property is situated, at present, within the territorial jurisdiction of the newly established Family Court at Pathanamthitta. It is true that the Family Court, Pathanamthitta also has jurisdiction to execute the decree, according to the said provision. Since both the courts havejurisdiction and at present EP is pending before the Family Court, Thiruvalla, there is no need to transfer the EP to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta. 14. We further find that the present EA.No.107/2014 filed by respondents 1 to 3 is hit by sub-rule 3 of rule 90 of order 21 of CPC, as this objection could have been taken before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn and no such objection was taken. In the above view, the impugned order would stand set aside. The Family Court, Thiruvalla is directed to restore EP.No.8/2013 in OP.No.415/2010 on the files and proceed in accordance with law. This Mat. Appeal is allowed.