Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1848
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
A.G. Nanjegowda S/o Giddegowda - Petitioner
Versus
Puttalakshmamma W/o Somegowda - Respondents
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.45 OF 2016
Decided On : 14-11-2019
For the Appellant :Sri Rajendra S, Advocate for Sri S.V.Prakash, Advocate)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for certification and recording of any payment made out of Court to the decree holder, as mandated by Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, for it to be recognized by the executing Court.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Execution of Decree - Order 21 Rule 1 and 2 CPC - The court discussed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for payment made by the judgment debtor to the decree holder out of Court. The court emphasized that any payment made out of Court must be certified and recorded by the executing Court to be recognized, as per Order 21 Rule 2(3) CPC. The court referred to the judgments of BADAMO DEVI AND ORS. VS. SAGAR SHARMA and SEETHARAMAKRISHNAIAH SETTY VS SATYANARAYANA SETTY to support its interpretation of the legal provisions. The court held that the alleged payment of Rs.1,50,000 under Ex.R.4 did not comply with the mandatory certification and recording requirements, and therefore, the execution proceedings were maintainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the execution petition was restored to the file of the executing Court for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of a sum from the respondents. The lower court partly decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. The respondents appealed, but the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and the judgment and decree became final. The petitioner initiated execution proceedings, but the respondents contended that the decree had been satisfied by a payment made out of Court. The Court below held in favor of the respondents, leading to the filing of the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the alleged payment under Ex.R.4 did not comply with the mandatory certification and recording requirements under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC. The Court held that the execution proceedings were maintainable and set aside the impugned order, restoring the execution petition to the file of the executing Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged satisfaction of the decree by a payment made out of Court and the compliance with the mandatory certification and recording requirements under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory procedure prescribed under Order 21 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for payment made by the judgment debtor to the decree holder out of Court. The court held that any payment made out of Court must be certified and recorded by the executing Court to be recognized, as per Order 21 Rule 2(3) CPC.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the execution petition was restored to the file of the executing Court for further proceedings.
ORDER :
1. This Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Court below closing/dismissing the Execution petition No.37/2010 filed by the petitioner/Decree holder.
2. As stated above, the petitioner was the decree holder in the said execution proceedings and the respondents herein were the judgment debtors. Before this Court, the respondents having been served with notice of this Revision petition have received service and not chosen to appear and remained unrepresented.
3. Lower court records have been received.
4. As stated above, since the respondents are served and unrepresented, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and taken up this revision petition for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
5. The undisputed facts giving raise to this revision petition are as follows:
6. The petitioner filed a suit on 02.03.2000 in O.S.No.30/2000 in the Court below for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,13,500/together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till realization from the respondents. The said suit having been contested by the respondents, the Court below partly decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with interest @ 18% per annum from 26.05.1999 and further interest @ 8% per annum from the date of suit, till realization.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the respondents preferred an appeal in RA No.29/20096 before the learned Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court, Holenarasipura. By judgment and decree dated 24.04.2010, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. After dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate Court, the respondents did not prefer any further appeal and the said judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court attained finality and became conclusive and binding upon the petitioner as well as the respondents.
8. Since the respondents did not comply with the judgment and decree passed in RA No.29/2009, the petitioners put the said decree into execution in Ex.No.37/2010 on 14.06.2010. In the said execution proceedings, the first respondent entered appearance and contested the same interalia contending that the execution proceedings were not maintainable in view of the fact that the decretal amount had been paid by her to the petitioner on 18.07.2010 which was evidenced by a receipt. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent No.1/judgment debtor that in view of the fact that she had paid the amount due under the decree to the petitioner and towards full and final settlement of the decree, the execution proceedings were not maintainable and that the same were liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the objections raised by the respondent No.1/judgment debtor regarding satisfaction, discharge and executability of the decree passed in RA No.29/2009, the Court below permitted the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and exhibits P.1 to P.4 were marked on his behalf. The respondent No.1/judgment debtor No.1 examined herself as RW1 and on her behalf three witnesses, RW2, RW3 and RW4 were examined and exhibits R1 to R5 were marked in support of her defence.
10. It is relevant to state that Ex.R.4 produced by the respondent No.1 is an alleged receipt dated 18.07.2010, said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1, thereby acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,50,000/from the respondent No.1 towards full and final settlement of the decreetal amount. This document at Ex.R.4 was seriously disputed by the petitioner both in his pleadings as well as in evidence. Under these circumstances, respondent No.1 in addition to examining RW2 and RW3, who are said to be the witnesses to said receipt at Ex.R.4, also sought for referring the said document at Ex.R.4 to the hand
