JUDGMENT Misra, J.
1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor in a case for execution of decree. The decree-holder respondent, Mt. Dulari Bibi, obtained a decree for maintenance against the judgment-debtor appellant from the Court of Munsif, Mohammadabad Gohna, District Azamgarh. Under this decree she was awarded main, tenance at Rs. 15 per month, and it was provided that on default in payment of the monthly maintenance the decree-holder would be entitled to realize the arrears by execution of the decree. Some time after the decree was passed, the decree-holder applied to the Court of the Munsif Mohammadabad Gohna to send the decree for axecution to the Court of the City Munsif, Azamgarh, and the decree was accordingly sent to the latter Court as provided by Section 39, Civil P.C. The certificate sent by he Court of the Munsif, Mohammadabad, specified a certain amount as being due under the decree on the date the certificate was sent. The decree-holder filed this certificate in the Court of the Munsif, Azamgarh, and made an application to execute to the decree for the amount that was stated in the certificate. Later on, she made an application to the Munsif asking that as some more arrears had accrued due on account of maintenance, a further sum representing these arrears should be added to the amount for which the decree was being executed. This application was granted in spite of an objection by the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor appealed against the order of the Munsif and his appeal also was dismissed; hence this second appeal. The only question for decision here is whether the Court which was executing the decree was or was not competent to execute it for a larger amount than that specified in the certificate.
2. Now the Court executing a decree sent to it has the same powers in executing such decree as if it had been passed by itself : vide Section 42, Civil P.C. If such is the case, there can be no doubt that the Court of the Munsif, Azamgarh, in this case was competent to execute the decree for the amount for which it could be executed. Further, the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh, was executing the decree and not the certificate sent to it by the Court which had passed the decree, and as a Court executing the decree, the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh, was competent to construe the decree under Order 21, Rule 6, Clause (b). The Court sending the decree for execution is not required by law to state the amount due under the decree or the relief to which the decree-holder is entitled. It is the decree itself which is to be the guide in these matters for the executing Court. If the Court transferring the decree puts a wrong construction on the decree or enters a wrong amount in the certificate, the judgment-debtor is not required to approach that Court for getting it amended; the Court executing the decree is quite competent to decide the matter itself. For these reasons I have no doubt that the decision of the Courts below is correct. This appeal has no force; I therefore dismiss it with costs. Leave to file Letters Patent appeal is refused.