SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(AP) 385

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : RAMA RAO
K.S.Hussain Peeran - Appellant
Versus
K.V.Ramana Reddy - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 678/85
Decided On : 09-26-86
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. S.V. Sundararajan,Mr. C. Pattabhirama Rao

Headnote:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, Or 21 Rules 1 and 2 -Scope of Application by a third party claiming payment of decretal amount to decree-holder after dismissal of his claim petition for default - Maintainable

       Held : The application is maintainable The requirement of furnishing the name and address of the payee in Clause (3) (c) of Rule 2 of Order 21 furnishes a clue to the person who can be payee and such payer is not confined to the judgment-debtor The circumstance of the absence of specific mention of judgment-debtor with reference to mode of payment in clause (b) of Rule 1 as distinct from clauses (a) and (c) coupled with the requirement of name of the payer in sub-rule 3 (c) including any person clearly demonstrate that the person other than the judgment-debtor is not precluded from paying the decretal amount Rule 2 does not prohibit or preclude any person other than the decree-holder judgment-debtor or surety to apprise the Court regarding payment and record satisfaction of the decree The essence is whether the decree-holder agreed to receive to amount or received the amount in the modes recorded by Rule 1 and if such evidence is adduced there cannot be any objection as to the maintainability of the application

       CRP Allowed

RAMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is against the order declining to entertain the application under O. 21, R. 2, C. P. C. for recording satisfaction of the decree.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application stating that the properties belonging to him are brought to sale in execution of the decree and the claim petition filed by him was dismissed for default. Subsequently pursuant to the panchayat he paid a sum of Rs. 5,500/- in full settlement of the decretal amount and obtained a receipt from the respondent-decree-holder. The decree-holder denied the allegations about the panchayat and also the payment of the decretal amount. When the petition has come up for hearing, the decree holder took a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the application under O. 21, R. 2, C. P. C. at the instance of the third party. The preliminary objection is upheld by the Court below.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that O. 21, R. 2, C. P. C. does not preclude the party from claiming that the decree has been satisfied. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that O. 21, R. 2, C. P. C. enables the judgment-debtor or a surety only to file a petition and others are not competent to file the application. Order 21, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. to the extent relevant are as follows : "payment under decree : (1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely : (a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or (c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs. (2) Where any payment is made under cl. (a) or cl. (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post acknowledgment due. (3) Where money is paid by the postal money order or through a bank under cl. (a) or cl. (b) of sub-r. (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars namely : (a) the number of the original suit; (b) the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs and the first two defendants; (c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is to say, whether it is towards the principal interest or costs; (d) the number of the execution case of the Court, where such case is pending; and (e) the name and address of the prayer. (4) On any amount paid under cl. (a) or cl. (c) of sub-r. (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of the notice referred to in sub-r. (2 ). (5) On any amount paid under cl. (b) of sub-r. (1), interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such payment;provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept the postal money order of payment through a bank, interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money was tendered to him or where he avoids acceptance of the postal money order or payment through bank interest shall cease to run from the date on which the money would have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of business of the postal authorities of the bank, as the case may be. 2. (1) Where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, (or the decree of any kind is otherwise adjusted) in whole or in part to the satisfaction of the decree-holder, the decree-holder shall certify such payment or adjustment to the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, and the Court shall record the same accordingly. (2) The judgment-debtor (or any person who has become surety for the judgment- debtor) also may inform the Court of such payment or adjustment, and apply to the Court to issue a notice to the decree-holder to show cause, on a day to





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top