A payment or adjustment of a decree outside the Court must be recorded within thirty (30) days from the date of payment or adjustment. A payment or adjustment not recorded within the said period shall not be recognized by any Court executing the decree.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) against the Order, dated 15.09.2015 in E.P.No.57 of 2014 in O.S.No.434 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, where under the execution petition filed under Order XXI Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against judgment-debtor No.7, for issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC and attachment, was ‘Allowed’.

2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 and Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel respondent No.1/decree-holder.

3. The learned counsel for revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 would submit that the Trial Court committed material irregularity by not recognizing the payment made by the revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 to the respondent No.1/decree-holder towards full and final settlement of the decree debt and ordered for execution.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree-holder would submit that in view of Rule 1, 2 and 3 of Order XXI of CPC and Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Trial Court did not commit any material irregularity.

5. In the light of the above rival contentions of the revision petitioner/ judgment-debtor No.7 and respondent No.1/decree-holder, the point that arises for consideration is:-

“Whether the Executing Court committed any irregularity in the Order dated 15.09.2015 passed in E.P.No.57 of 2014 in O.S.No.434 of 1993?”

6. POINT : - The contention of revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 is that he paid an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- on 08.04.2003 to the respondent No.1/decree-holder towards full and final settlement of the decree amount and the respondent No.1/ decree-holder issued a receipt acknowledging the payment; but the respondent No.1/decree-holder suppressing the payment, filed the execution petition after eleven (11) years to gain unlawfully.

7. The contention of the respondent No.1/decree-holder is that the revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor No.7 did not pay any amount and the respondent No.1/decree-holder did not issue any receipt as claimed by the revision-petitioner/ judgment-debtor No.7.

8. This Court in P.Narasaiah vs. P.Rajoo Reddy, AIR 1989 AP 264, wherein the difference of opinion between two learned judges sitting in a Division Bench, the Civil Revision Petition was referred to a third Judge. In effect, this judgment is as efficacious as the judgment of a Full Bench. Justice Amareswari, at para-No.4, held as under:

“Where there is consensus between the parties, Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC applies. But, if any question arises as to payment or satisfaction of the decree, it has to be decided by the executing Court and a separate suit is got maintainable. In the present case, the decree- holder filed an application for execution, the judgment-debtor contested the application saying that the decree is satisfied and the amount is paid. There is no consensus or agreement between the parties and the payment is in question. This is a matter which relates to execution, and falls within the scope of Section 47 of CPC which clearly directs that the said question should be decided by the executing Court and not by way of a separate suit. Section 47 of CPC is designed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and the power of the Court under Section 47 of CPC is not controlled by Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC which deals with a separate situation altogether. Hence, the order of the Court below is set-aside and the revision is allowed. The executing Court shall proceed first to determine the question whether any payment was made by the judgment-debtor towards satisfaction of the decree before ordering attachment of sale of the properties.”

Differing with the view taken by Justice Amareswari, Justice Upendralal Waghray, at para-No.3 held as under:

“Order XXI Rule 2 of CPC