BHANDARI, J.—These two miscellaneous execution appeals are connected cases and arise under the following circumstances:—

Heera Chand and Mst. Umrao Kanwar filed a suit for the sale of the mortgage-property against Mishirimal and obtained a preliminary decree on 5.7.57. They had also obtained another decree for Rs. 2160/13/-on 20.8.54. Before they obtained a preliminary decree on the Mortgage-debt, it is alleged that they had assigned the mortgage-debt along with the decree of Rs. 2152/13/- to Pukhraj and others (hereinafter called the assignees). Heera Chand and Mst. Umrao Kanwar (hereinafter called the asssignors) got the final decree in the mortgage-suit on 11.3.58. Before that on 19.10.57 the assignors had also assigned both the decrees to the assignees. Mishrimal had filed a suit against the assignors in the Court of District Judge, Balotra, on 20.9.1957. That suit was decreed on 31.5.58 and the decree for Rs. 17083.12 nP. was passed in favour of Mishrimal against the assignors. Mishrimal applied for the execution of his decree dated 31.5.58 and prayed for the attachment of the decrees dated 11.3.58 and 20.8.54 obtained by the assignors and further prayed that these decrees being cross-decrees may be set off against each Other. To this the assignees objected. The main ground that has been urged on their behalf is that the assignors had lost all interest in the assigned decrees and the decree against the assignors cannot be set off against the decrees of the assignees. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi, by his order, dated 16.4.59, held that Mishrimal was entitled to set off the cross-decrees under O. 21 R. 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The assignees have filed Civil Execution First Appeal No. 13 of 1959 against this order. Thereafter on 18.9.59 the learned Senior Civil Judge, in pursuance of his order dated 16.4.59, ordered that satisfaction be recorded in the decrees referred to above in accordance with the provisions of O. 21, R. 18 of the Code. D.B. Miscellaneous Execution First Appeal No. 18 of 1959 has been preferred by the assignees against the said order.

2. The main points that have been urged on behalf of the appellants are that on 19.10.57 when the (decrees were assigned by the assignors to the assignees, there was no decree in existence in favour of Mishrimal against the assignors and lower court was wrong in holding that under Sec. 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decrees of the assignees were subject to equitable set off which Mishrimal could enforce against the assignors in respect of his decree.

3. On behalf of Mishrimal, it has been urged in reply to this argument that the trial court has rightly held that as on the date of assignment Mishrimal had filed a suit which resulted in the decree in his favour on 31.5.58 against the assignors, under O.21, R. 29, C.P.C. he could have prayed for the stay of the execution of the decrees obtained against him by the assignors until the pending suit was decided and this was the equity which was available to Mishrimal as against the assignees as well. It is also contended that under O.21, R. 18 the date of the assignment is immaterial and in case there are applications before a Court for the execution of the cross-decrees between the same parties and capable of execution at the same time, the Court is bound to enter satisfaction of the decrees of the assignees. In this connection, sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 is referred to, which makes the principle of equitable set off applicable even to cases where either the parties are assignees of one of the decrees and also in respect of judgment-debts due by the original assignor. It is urged that the original assignors were liable to M shrimal for the payment of the decretal amount obtained by him on 31.5.53 and their judgment-debts can be set off against the decree which the assignees executed against him.

4. We first take into consideration the provisions of O. 21, R. 18 of the Code and examine the second contention raised

Click Here to Read the rest of this document