Timeliness and evidentiary sufficiency govern discharge of decrees: certifications under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC filed beyond 30 days are impermissible; where documentary records conflict with oral evidence, the documentary record prevails under Section 92 of the Evidence Act; late discharges via relinquishment do not sustain relief.

JUDGMENT :

K. Natarajan, J.

The original petition No.1694/2022 filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor challenging the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge’s Court, Thrissur, in EA No.513/213 in EP No. 141/2014 arising out of O.S.No. 814/2013 for having dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC.

2. OP(C) No.1946/2023 was also filed by the same petitioner/judgment debtor for challenging the order of attachment issued by the same court on 05.09.2023 for attaching the property, which was previously attached and later lifted the attachment and now it is said to be in the name of one Nabeesa, the aunt of the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/decree holder filed an EP 141/2015 for recovery of Rs. 52,06,015/- from the judgment debtor in respect of the decretal amount in O.S No.814/2013, which was an award passed by the Lok Adalath/ settlement. Initially the decree holder filed an application, and the property of the judgment debtor was said to be attached by the Execution Court, and later the judgment debtor filed an application under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC and got lifted the attachment by obtaining the NOC from the decree holder and the court also lifted the attachment. Then he is said to have relinquished his ½ share in the said property to his own aunt namely one Nabeesa.

4. It is submitted by the judgment debtor that after the lifting of the attachment, the judgment debtor relinquished the right to the Nabeesa and received Rs.20 lakhs from her, and that amount was said to be directly paid to the decree holder by the Nabeesa, who is aunt of the judgment debtor, through a cheque dated 02.08.2013.

5. Subsequently, the judgment debtor said to have paid Rs.5 lakhs by cash cheque to the PW 4, the manager of the judgment debtor. The said amount has been encashed by the Shri.Unnikrishnan and paid to the decree holder. Again, on 13.08.2013, Rs. 4 lakhs cash has been given to the decree holder. On 09.09.2013, Rs.8,00,000/- has been withdrawn by one Sri. Sreekrishnan and paid to the decree holder, on 28.09.2013 Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid to the father of the decree holder (PW6), on 22.11.2013 Rs.3,00,000/- has been paid to the decree holder through a cash cheque and Rs.4,10,000/- paid to the decree holder on different dates through cash. A total of Rs.49,10,000/- (Rupees forty nine lakhs and ten thousand only) has been paid to the decree holder. The entire amount has been discharged by the judgment debtor.

6. Therefore, he filed an application before the Execution Court for certification of the amounts paid by the judgment debtor to the decree holder. Initially it was objected by the decree holder as it is barred by limitation under Order 21 Rule 2 of CPC. However, the Execution Court permitted the judgment debtor to lead evidence. Accordingly, the judgment debtor lead evidence of seven witnesses, and Ext. X1 and X2 were marked. The decree holder, himself was examined as RW1. And after hearing the argument, the execution court dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor. Accordingly, the judgment debtor filed this OP(C) No.1694 /2022 challenging the said order.

7. The case of the same petitioner in another OP(C) No. 1946/2023. Subsequently, the very same petitioner filed another petiti