PRECEPTS

It was, at one time, proposed to do away with the system of execution by

transfer of decree under ss 36 to 42, and to substitute another system whereby
the court which passed the decree, retained complete control and issued precepts
to one or more other courts to carry on execution under its direction. This
proposal was abandoned and the system of execution by transfer of decree
retained. But the proposal led to the insertion of the present section by which
the court which passed the decree can issue a precept of attachment to ensure
for two months or pending transfer of decree and application for execution. The
object of a precept is to enable a decree-holder to obtain an interim attachment
where there is ground to apprehend that he may otherwise be deprived of the
fruits of his decree. No such attachment, however, can continue for more than
two months except in the two cases mentioned in the section. The effect of the
proviso is to render re-attachment unnecessary. When money is attached under a
precept and the period of the operation of the precept is over, the money can be
paid over to another decree-holder, who subsequently attaches it. [Gurdiyal
Singh v. Kharzan Chand , AIR 1936 Lah 486]
In an Andhra case, the facts were as under:
(i) Property in town A was attached;
(ii) Execution proceedings were going on in town B;
(iii) Application had been made to hold the auction in town A , where the sale
would fetch a higher price as a large number of bidders were expected to bid.
It was held that the jurisdiction of court at B to give direction to court at A to
conduct the auction was not affected by the mere expiry of the period of
attachment. .
[Karri Venkata Reddi v. Central Bank of India , AIR 1990 Pat 81.]
When the attachment of a debt out of jurisdiction is made directly and not
through a precept, the attachment is illegal. [ Sheerazee v. Reddy , AIR 1940
Rang 34: (1939) ILR Rang 624.]
As a general rule, territorial jurisdiction is a condition precedent to a court
executing a decree and neither the court which passes the decree, nor the court
to which it is sent for execution, can execute it in respect of property lying
outside its territorial jurisdiction. The object of s 46 (precepts), is simply to
enable the attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor situated within the
jurisdiction of another court, in order to prevent the judgment-debtor from
alienating or otherwise dealing with it to the detriment of the judgment-debtor
till proper proceedings are taken. [368 . Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Mangilal
Rungta , AIR 1981 Del 114]